Hawaii
Hawaii License Plate Reader Laws (2026)
Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited September 30, 2026). · 8 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content

Hawaii has no statute we could find that sets rules for license plate readers. The only statutory text that names the technology is an exemption: a 2025 law banning facial recognition in Hawaii's photo red light and automated speed enforcement cameras says the ban does not apply to "automated license plate reader systems." That exemption tells you the facial-recognition ban gives no protection against plate readers, and it does not regulate them.
Information reviewed September 30, 2026.
For related pages, see the Hawaii entry in the state comparison, the ALPR laws hub, Are Flock cameras legal?, What are Flock cameras?, and our Hawaii surveillance camera laws guide.
Is there a Hawaii law on license plate readers?
We found no dedicated one. The only Hawaii Revised Statutes text we opened that names plate readers is an exemption clause. HRS § 291J-5.5 bars facial recognition software and biometric identification technology in photo red light imaging detector systems. Subsection (b) then says: "This section shall not apply to: (1) Automated license plate reader systems; or (2) Any non-biometric technology used to verify vehicle identity, registration status, or to generate photographic evidence of a traffic violation." HRS § 291L-4.5, the parallel section for automated speed enforcement systems, carries the same exemption in subsection (b)(1).
Both sections were enacted by Act 212 of 2025, HB1231, "Relating to Traffic Safety," which the Legislature's Acts report lists as signed June 25, 2025. The report's summary says it "prohibits the use of facial recognition software in the operation of any photo red light imaging detector systems or automated speed enforcement systems."
An exemption is not a rule for the thing exempted. These sections do not define plate reader systems and do not limit what agencies may collect, keep or share.

What does Hawaii's photo red light law say about plate images?
HRS § 291J-5 provides that any photograph or video produced by the system that contains a clear and unobstructed image of a license plate "shall be prima facie evidence that the motor vehicle to which the license plate is attached is the motor vehicle for which the license plate was issued." Images evidencing a violation must be available for inspection in a liability proceeding. We saw no retention period in that section. This is evidence law for traffic-enforcement cameras, not a rule about plate reader databases. The same chapters do limit data from those traffic cameras: HRS § 291J-11 and § 291L-9 say personal and confidential information from a photo red light or speed camera system must be kept confidential and used only for the purpose it was furnished, with a fine of up to $500 for intentional unauthorized disclosure. Those sections cover the traffic-camera programs, not standalone plate readers run by police.
What we could not check
This page is short because the sources we could verify are few, and we would rather say so than fill space. Specifically:
- Public records. The Uniform Information Practices Act, HRS chapter 92F, returned a block message on every attempt, and we found no Office of Information Practices opinion or court ruling. We do not say whether plate reads, hot lists or camera locations are disclosable in Hawaii.
- Other statutes. We opened the opening text of HRS § 803-42, the interception and mobile tracking device statute, and of the criminal history records and traffic-records provisions, but we did not find or evaluate any application to plate readers, so we assert none.
- Bills. We scanned the 2026 Senate bill report and the 2025 and 2026 lists of enacted acts and found no plate reader act. One House bill came close: HB 2033, in the version that passed the House, would have let counties use automatic license plate recognition to cite vehicles without current inspection or registration certificates and required that data be erased within 90 days unless tied to an investigation, enforcement action or citation. A later Senate draft removed that part, and the bill did not become law. We did not review every other House bill.
- Policies and opinions. The Honolulu Police Department's published plate reader policy says downloaded plate reader data is purged after 90 days unless it has become evidence, and that sharing with other agencies needs the police chief's approval. That is department policy, not law. Other county police policies, state transportation policies, Attorney General opinions and records-retention schedules were not researched.
What else was enacted that touches license plates?
Two adjacent measures are not plate reader rules. Act 12 of 2026, HB1510, "Relating to License Plates," approved May 14, 2026, conditions certificates of inspection on there being no cover or shield over the plate and, per the Legislature's summary, repeals the requirement that a cover be intended to interfere with visibility to "law enforcement or traffic enforcement systems," effective January 1, 2027. Separately, several 2026 Senate bills on biometric surveillance and geolocation data were not enacted according to the Senate bill report, including SB2049 on law enforcement biometric surveillance technology.
A 2026 immigration law also bears on plate reader data, although it never mentions plate readers. Act 141 of 2026, SB2057, signed June 24, 2026 and effective on approval, says that, "Except as required by federal or state law," no state or county law enforcement agency or official shall "[p]rovide non-publicly available personal information to federal immigration authorities about an individual in a noncriminal matter" or "allow time, money, facilities, property, equipment, vehicles, personnel, databases, surveillance technology, communication systems, or other resources to be used to facilitate federal immigration authorities in an operation for the purpose of civil immigration enforcement." The act does not prohibit an officer from performing duties under state law, including investigating or enforcing state criminal laws, compliance with a judicial warrant, court order or subpoena, or the provision of information or assistance expressly required by federal or state law, including any mandatory information-sharing duty, or in accordance with 8 U.S.C. §§ 1373 and 1644.
What have Hawaii courts said?
We found no Hawaii decision on plate readers. A CourtListener search of Hawaii state and federal courts returned one hit, a 2021 case in which "LPR" meant lawful permanent resident. Absence from a search is not proof that no ruling exists.
How can I check my local system?
Because no state statute we found sets the rules, the useful documents are local. In Maui County, a council committee reportedly advanced Bill 113 in September 2026, which would bar the sale of plate reader data and require county camera contracts to limit vendors' use of it. It was headed to the full council as of that report, and we did not confirm its later status. Ask the police department or county for its written plate reader policy, retention schedule and vendor contract. For the technology itself, see What are Flock cameras?.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does Hawaii have a license plate reader law?
We found none. The only statutory text naming plate readers is an exemption in HRS §§ 291J-5.5(b)(1) and 291L-4.5(b)(1) saying a 2025 facial-recognition ban for photo red light and speed cameras does not apply to automated license plate reader systems.
Does Hawaii's facial recognition ban cover plate readers?
No. Act 212 of 2025 bans facial recognition in photo red light and automated speed enforcement systems, and expressly exempts automated license plate reader systems.
How long can Hawaii police keep plate reader data?
We found no Hawaii statute setting a plate reader retention period. The Honolulu Police Department's published policy purges plate reader data after 90 days unless it has become evidence, but that is a department policy, not law, and we did not research other counties or the state records-retention schedule.
Can I request plate reader data in Hawaii?
We could not check. The Uniform Information Practices Act pages were blocked when we tried to open them, and we found no Office of Information Practices opinion or court ruling, so we do not say whether such data is disclosable.
Did Hawaii pass a plate reader bill in 2026?
No. HB 2033 passed the House with a county plate recognition citation program and a 90-day data limit, but a later Senate draft removed that part and the bill did not become law.
Updates
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources
The Law Behind This Article
This article rests on the statutory provisions below, held in our own legal record and retrieved from the official source. Tap a section to read the operative text.
Hawaii Revised Statutes, Chapter 291J: PHOTO RED LIGHT IMAGING DETECTOR SYSTEMS
§ 291J-5.5Facial recognition software; prohibitedIn forcecited in 3 of our articles
(a) No photo red light imaging detector system authorized under this chapter shall use or be equipped with facial recognition software or biometric identification technology. (b) This section shall not apply to: (1) Automated license plate reader systems; or (2) Any non-biometric technology used to verify vehicle identity, registration status, or to generate photographic evidence of a traffic violation. (c) For the purposes of this section: "Biometric identification" includes but is not limited to recognition of facial features, iris scans, retinal scans, fingerprints, or voice patterns. "Facial recognition software" means technology that analyzes facial features to identify or verify the identity of an individual. [L 2025, c 212, §3]
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at capitol.hawaii.gov
Also relied on in: License Plate Reader Laws by State: 2026 Comparison
§ 291J-11Fines for unauthorized disclosureIn force
All personal and confidential information made available by a photo red light imaging detector system to an officer, employee, or agent of the State or any county, including third party contractors, shall be kept confidential and shall be used only for the purposes for which the information was furnished. Any officer, employee, or agent of the State or any county, including a third party contractor, who intentionally discloses or provides a copy of personal and confidential information obtained from a photo red light imaging detector system to any person or agency without authorization shall be fined not more than $500; provided that the fine shall not preclude the application of penalties or fines otherwise provided for by law. [L 2020, c 30, pt of §2]
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at capitol.hawaii.gov
§ 291J-5Photo red light imaging detector system requirementsIn force
(a) Photo red light imaging detector equipment may be operated from a fixed pole, post, or other fixed structure on a state or county highway. (b) Signs and other official traffic-control devices indicating that traffic signal laws are enforced by a photo red light imaging detector system shall be posted on major routes entering the area in question to provide, as far as practicable, notice to drivers of the existence and operation of the system. (c) Proof of a violation of section 291C-32(c) shall be as evidenced by information obtained from the photo red light imaging detector system authorized pursuant to this chapter. A certificate, sworn to or affirmed by the reviewing police department, or a facsimile thereof, based upon inspection of photographs, microphotographs, video, or other recorded images produced by the system, shall be prima facie evidence of the facts contained therein.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at capitol.hawaii.gov
Hawaii Revised Statutes, Chapter 291L: AUTOMATED SPEED ENFORCEMENT SYSTEMS
§ 291L-4.5Facial recognition software; prohibitedIn forcecited in 3 of our articles
(a) No automated speed enforcement system authorized under this chapter shall use or be equipped with facial recognition software or biometric identification technology. (b) This section shall not apply to: (1) Automated license plate reader systems; or (2) Any non-biometric technology used to verify vehicle identity, registration status, or to generate photographic evidence of a traffic violation. (c) For the purposes of this section: "Biometric identification" includes but is not limited to recognition of facial features, iris scans, retinal scans, fingerprints, or voice patterns. "Facial recognition software" means technology that analyzes facial features to identify or verify the identity of an individual. [L 2025, c 212, §4]
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at capitol.hawaii.gov
§ 291L-9Fines for unauthorized disclosureIn force
All personal and confidential information made available by an automated speed enforcement system to an officer, employee, or agent of the State or any county, including third-party contractors, shall be kept confidential and shall be used only for the purposes for which the information was furnished. Any officer, employee, or agent of the State or any county, including a third-party contractor, who intentionally discloses or provides a copy of personal and confidential information obtained from an automated speed enforcement system to any person or agency without authorization shall be fined not more than $500; provided that the fine shall not preclude the application of penalties or fines otherwise provided for by law. [L 2024, c 112, pt of §2]
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at capitol.hawaii.gov
Hawaii Revised Statutes, Chapter 803: ARRESTS, SEARCHES, SEARCH WARRANTS
§ 803-42Interception, access, and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications, use of pen register, trap and trace device, and mobile tracking device prohibitedIn forcecited in 21 of our articles
(a) Except as otherwise specifically provided in this part, any person who: (1) Intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any wire, oral, or electronic communication; (2) Intentionally uses, endeavors to use, or procures any other person to use or endeavor to use any electronic, mechanical, or other device to intercept any wire, oral, or electronic communication when: (A) Such a device is affixed to, or otherwise transmits a signal through, a wire, cable, or other similar connection used in wire communication; or (B) Such a device transmits communications by radio, or interferes with the transmission of such communication; (3) Intentionally discloses, or endeavors to disclose, to any other person the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication in violation of this part; (4) Intentionally uses, or endeavors to use, the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-23 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at capitol.hawaii.gov
Cited in 14 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):State v. Lo (1983) held HRS 803-42(b)(3) barred police from secretly installing recording devices in a hotel room even though one participant consented, and suppressed the evidence. State v. Lee (1984) held a recorder worn by a consenting participant is not an installation in a private place, so no violation.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Lo (Hawaii Supreme Court 1983, 66 Haw. 653)✓Agents wired a hotel room and recorded a doctor lured there by a cooperating patient; the Hawaii Supreme Court held the statute bars installing a recording device in any private place without the consent of those entitled to privacy, and affirmed suppression.
- State v. Okubo (Hawaii Supreme Court 1984, 67 Haw. 197)✓Police recorded roughly forty bribery conversations using body recorders and phone taps with the participating officers' consent; the Hawaii Supreme Court found the consensual monitoring valid under the statute and the state constitution.
- State v. Lee (Hawaii Supreme Court 1984, 67 Haw. 307)✓An officer posing as a patient wore a recorder into a doctor's private office; the Hawaii Supreme Court held a device worn on a participant's body is not an installation in a private place, so the statute was not violated, distinguishing Lo.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Hawaii Recording Laws (2026): Hybrid Consent State Rules, Hawaii Audio Recording Laws: One-Party Consent Rules and Penalties, Hawaii Smart Glasses Recording Laws (2026)
Search our full record of US law — 2.1 million sections, every state + federal →
Sources and References
- HRS § 291J-5.5(www.capitol.hawaii.gov).gov
- HRS § 291L-4.5(www.capitol.hawaii.gov).gov
- HRS § 291J-5(www.capitol.hawaii.gov).gov
- HRS § 291J-11(capitol.hawaii.gov).gov
- HRS § 291L-9(capitol.hawaii.gov).gov
- Hawaii Legislature, HB 2033 (2026) bill page(capitol.hawaii.gov).gov
- HB 2033, HD2 (version passed by the House)(data.capitol.hawaii.gov).gov
- Honolulu Police Department's published plate reader policy(honolulupd.org)
- Hoodline report on Maui Bill 113 (Sept. 4, 2026)(hoodline.com)
- Act 141 of 2026(data.capitol.hawaii.gov).gov