Hawaii
Hawaii GPS Tracking Laws: Is It Legal to Put a Tracker on a Car? (2026)
Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited June 17, 2026). · Law checked current as of August 9, 2026. How we verify our legal content
Most states treat a first-offense hidden GPS tracker as a misdemeanor, if they ban it at all. Hawaii does not. Put a tracker on a car you do not own in Hawaii and you are looking at a Class C felony, with up to five years in prison and a $10,000 fine.
That makes Hawaii one of the harshest GPS tracking states in the country, and almost nobody knows it. The ban does not live in the stalking chapter where most people look. It is buried in Hawaii's wiretap law, in the same section that criminalizes intercepting phone calls.
This guide walks through what HRS 803-42(a)(8) actually says, who can legally track a vehicle, what the law means for AirTags, and what to do if you find a tracker on your own car.
Is It Legal to Put a GPS Tracker on a Car in Hawaii?
Only if you own the car, or the owner says yes. For everyone else, the answer is a hard no, and the consequences are far more serious than most people expect.
Hawaii Revised Statutes section 803-42(a)(8) makes it a crime to intentionally install or use a mobile tracking device without first obtaining a search warrant or other court order, unless the device is installed by or with the consent of the owner of the property on which the device is installed.
Read that exception carefully. It does not ask whether you have a good reason. It does not care if the target is your spouse, your ex, or your adult child. The only questions are whether a judge authorized the device, or whether the owner of the property consented.
Violate the section and you are guilty of a Class C felony. Not a petty misdemeanor, not a citation. A felony, on the first offense.
Hawaii's Hidden Felony: HRS 803-42(a)(8)
Most aggregator sites miss this law entirely, and it is easy to see why. Hawaii has no statute titled "GPS tracking." Instead, the legislature folded mobile tracking devices into Part IV of chapter 803, the electronic eavesdropping part of Hawaii's criminal procedure code, back when it modernized the wiretap law.
Section 803-42(a) lists eight prohibited acts. The first seven cover intercepting calls, disclosing intercepted communications, hacking stored messages, and using pen registers. The eighth covers tracking devices. Every one of them carries the same penalty: a Class C felony.
The companion section, HRS 803-44.7, spells out how police get permission. Officers must apply to a designated circuit court judge, show probable cause that the device will turn up evidence of a crime, and accept a 60-day limit on the order, with extensions only on a fresh showing of probable cause.
There is a definitional wrinkle worth knowing. HRS 803-41 defines a "tracking device" as an electronic or mechanical device that permits tracking the movement of a person or object, but it excludes a device installed in a vehicle by or with the permission of the owner or person in lawful possession of that vehicle. So a tracker placed in a car with the consent of either the titled owner or the person lawfully driving it generally falls outside the crime.
Federal law points the same direction. In United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012), the U.S. Supreme Court held that attaching a GPS device to a vehicle and using it to monitor the vehicle's movements is a Fourth Amendment search. Hawaii just goes further than most states by making the private version of that conduct a felony.
Who Can Legally Track a Vehicle in Hawaii
The exceptions are narrow, and they all run through ownership or a court order.
You own the vehicle. If the car is titled in your name, you are the owner of the property the device is installed on, and your own consent satisfies the statute. That covers tracking your own car after a string of break-ins, or a tracker you install before lending the car out.
You co-own the vehicle. A spouse whose name is on the title has an ownership interest, which is why tracking a jointly titled family car sits differently than tracking a car titled solely to your spouse. Tracking a vehicle titled only in the other spouse's name, without their knowledge, is exactly the conduct the felony statute describes. Divorce suspicion is not an exception.
The owner or lawful possessor consents. Hawaii's definition extends to consent from the person in lawful possession, which covers situations like a lessee agreeing to a fleet tracker.
Law enforcement with a warrant. Police can track a suspect's vehicle, but only with a warrant or court order under HRS 803-44.7, or in a designated bait vehicle.
Notice what is missing. There is no parent exception. A parent who owns the car their teenager drives is covered as the owner, but Hawaii's statute does not bless tracking a child's property the parent does not own. There is also no private investigator exception. A PI who plants a tracker on a target's car in Hawaii commits the same Class C felony as anyone else, and so does the client who hires them to do it.
Can My Employer Track My Car in Hawaii?
Hawaii has no statute requiring an employer to give notice before putting a GPS unit on a vehicle, so vehicle tracking runs through the same ownership rule as everything else. Hawaii does have one narrow statute aimed squarely at employer location tracking, but it covers phones rather than cars.
If you drive a company-owned vehicle, your employer owns the property the tracker is installed on, so the felony statute does not apply. Fleet tracking of company trucks and vans is lawful in Hawaii, and it is standard practice.
Your personal car is a different story. An employer who hides a tracker on an employee's personally owned vehicle has installed a device on property it does not own, without the owner's consent. That is squarely within HRS 803-42(a)(8). An employer that wants location data from your personal vehicle needs your actual consent, which in practice means a signed agreement, often tied to mileage reimbursement apps or telematics programs you opt into.
Your personal phone is protected by name. Under HRS 378-102, enacted in 2021, it is an unlawful practice for an employer to require an employee to download a mobile application to the employee's personal communication device that enables the employee's location to be tracked, or the employee's personal information to be revealed, as a condition of employment or continued employment. The same section makes it unlawful to terminate, discharge, or otherwise discriminate against an employee for refusing to download such an app, or for opposing the practice or filing a complaint about it.
The limits are in HRS 378-103. The prohibition does not apply where the employee consents to the download, and it does not stop an employer from requiring you to carry or use an employer-owned communication device that tracks your location. The rule targets compelled tracking on hardware you paid for, not company-issued phones.
AirTags and Item Trackers in Hawaii
Apple AirTags, Tiles, and similar item trackers are cheap, tiny, and heavily used in stalking cases nationwide. Hawaii's statute reaches them the same way it reaches a hardwired GPS unit. The law covers any electronic or mechanical device that permits tracking the movement of a person or object, and it covers using the device, not just installing it.
Slip an AirTag into someone's bag, jacket, or car without consent and you have installed a tracking device on property you do not own. The statute does not require the device to be attached to a vehicle.
One persistent myth needs correcting here. In 2024, Hawaii lawmakers introduced HB2014, a bill that would have created a specific misdemeanor for using a location tracker to harass, stalk, or perpetrate a crime against another person. Some websites describe it as if it became law. It did not. The bill was referred to the House Judiciary & Hawaiian Affairs Committee on January 24, 2024, never received a hearing, and died when the session ended.
The practical upshot is counterintuitive: because HB2014 failed, secret tracking in Hawaii is not a new misdemeanor. It remains an old felony.
Tracking someone with an AirTag can also support a charge of harassment by stalking under HRS 711-1106.5, which covers a course of conduct involving pursuit, surveillance, or nonconsensual contact on more than one occasion. Cross state lines or use the mails or internet as part of a campaign that puts someone in fear, and federal stalking under 18 U.S.C. 2261A can come into play as well.
Penalties for Illegal GPS Tracking in Hawaii
| Offense | Statute | Classification | Maximum Penalty |
|---|---|---|---|
| Installing or using a mobile tracking device without a warrant or owner consent | HRS 803-42(a)(8) | Class C felony | Indeterminate 5-year prison term, fine up to $10,000 |
| Harassment by stalking (course of conduct with surveillance) | HRS 711-1106.5 | Misdemeanor | Up to 1 year in jail, fine up to $2,000 |
| Aggravated harassment by stalking (prior stalking conviction within 5 years) | HRS 711-1106.4 | Class C felony | Indeterminate 5-year prison term, fine up to $10,000 |
| Federal stalking (interstate or electronic surveillance campaign) | 18 U.S.C. 2261A | Federal felony | Up to 5 years, more if injury results |
Hawaii sentences felonies with indeterminate terms. A Class C conviction means the court imposes the full five-year maximum under HRS 706-660 and the Hawaii Paroling Authority sets the minimum served. The $10,000 fine ceiling comes from HRS 706-640.
A felony record in Hawaii also carries the usual collateral consequences: loss of firearm rights, immigration exposure for non-citizens, and serious problems with professional licensing and employment.
Civil Remedies and the Hawaii Privacy Right
Hawaii's wiretap chapter includes a civil action, HRS 803-48, that lets people whose communications were unlawfully intercepted sue for damages. On its text, that section does not reach location tracking. It runs only to a person whose wire, oral, or electronic communication is accessed, intercepted, disclosed, or used in violation of the part, and HRS 803-41 expressly excludes any communication from a tracking device from the definition of electronic communication. Planting a tracker is still a Class C felony under 803-42(a)(8), but the chapter's damages provision is built around intercepted communications, which a GPS log is not.
Tracking victims are not without civil options, though. Hawaii recognizes the tort of intrusion upon seclusion, and a hidden tracker that logs everywhere you go is a strong fit for that claim. Hawaii is also one of the few states with an express constitutional privacy right: Article I, section 6 of the Hawaii Constitution declares that the right of the people to privacy is recognized and shall not be infringed without a compelling state interest.
If the tracking is part of a harassment or stalking pattern, you can petition for a protective order. Our guide to Hawaii restraining order laws covers the process, including the district court injunction against harassment that does not require a domestic relationship.
What to Do If You Find a Tracker on Your Car
- Do not destroy it. The device is evidence, and it may carry fingerprints, a serial number, or an account registration that identifies who planted it.
- Photograph it in place. Capture where it was hidden, the wheel well, bumper, or OBD port, before anyone touches it.
- Call the police. What you found is potential evidence of a Class C felony. Ask for a report number and tell the officer about HRS 803-42 if they are unfamiliar with it.
- If you get an AirTag alert, follow it. iPhones alert you to unknown AirTags traveling with you, and Android users can scan with Apple's detection app. The alert screen shows the tag's serial number, which Apple can tie to its owner for law enforcement.
- Consider a protective order if you have any idea who placed it, especially an ex-partner.
- Get a sweep if you are worried about more. A mechanic can check the OBD port and wiring; stalkers rarely stop at one method.
GPS tracking is only one strand of surveillance law in the islands. For audio and video rules, see our guide to Hawaii recording laws, and for camera placement see surveillance camera laws by state. To compare how other states handle trackers, start with GPS Tracking Laws by State.
Sources
- HRS 803-42: Interception, access, and disclosure prohibited; mobile tracking devices (Hawaii State Legislature)
- HRS 803-41: Definitions, including tracking device (Hawaii State Legislature)
- HRS 803-44.7: Application for authorization to install and use a mobile tracking device (Hawaii State Legislature)
- HRS 711-1106.5: Harassment by stalking (Hawaii State Legislature)
- HB2014 (2024): Location tracker harassment bill, measure status (Hawaii State Legislature)
- 18 U.S.C. 2261A, Stalking (Cornell Legal Information Institute)
- United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012) (Cornell Legal Information Institute)
Disclaimer: This article is for general informational purposes only and is not legal advice. Laws change, and how they apply depends on your specific facts. If you found a tracker, are being stalked, or face a criminal charge, talk to a licensed Hawaii attorney, and call 911 if you are in immediate danger.
More Hawaii Laws
- Hawaii Dashcam Laws
- Hawaii Data Privacy Laws
- Hawaii Drone Laws
- Hawaii Employee Monitoring Laws
- Hawaii Recording Laws
- Hawaii Restraining Order Laws
Frequently Asked Questions
Is it illegal to put a GPS tracker on someone's car in Hawaii?
Yes. Under HRS 803-42(a)(8), intentionally installing or using a mobile tracking device without a search warrant or court order is a Class C felony, unless the owner of the property the device is installed on consents. The maximum penalty is an indeterminate five-year prison term and a $10,000 fine.
Can I put a GPS tracker on my spouse's car in Hawaii?
Only if you are an owner of that car. If the vehicle is jointly titled, your consent as a co-owner generally covers the install. If the car is titled solely in your spouse's name, hiding a tracker on it is the exact conduct Hawaii's felony statute prohibits, and divorce suspicion is not a defense.
Can parents track their child's car in Hawaii?
Parents can track a vehicle the parent owns, because the owner-consent exception applies. Hawaii's statute contains no general parent exception, so tracking property the parent does not own, like an adult child's own car, is not authorized.
Are AirTags illegal in Hawaii?
Owning and using an AirTag to track your own keys or luggage is legal. Planting one on another person or their belongings without consent falls under the same Class C felony as a hidden GPS unit, and a repeated pattern can also be charged as harassment by stalking under HRS 711-1106.5.
Did Hawaii pass a new AirTag stalking law in 2024?
No. HB2014 (2024) would have created a specific misdemeanor for harassing someone with a location tracker, but it died in the House Judiciary & Hawaiian Affairs Committee without a hearing after its January 24, 2024 referral. The existing felony under HRS 803-42(a)(8) remains the controlling law.
Can my employer GPS track me in Hawaii?
An employer can track vehicles it owns, including the company car you drive, because owner consent satisfies the statute. Tracking your personally owned vehicle without your consent would violate HRS 803-42(a)(8). Hawaii has no statute requiring advance notice of tracking on company vehicles, but HRS 378-102 does make it an unlawful practice to require you to download a location-tracking app to your personal phone as a condition of employment, or to retaliate against you for refusing, unless you consent or the device is employer-owned.
Can a private investigator put a tracker on a car in Hawaii?
No. Hawaii's statute has no private investigator exception. A PI who installs a tracker on a vehicle without the owner's consent commits the same Class C felony as anyone else, and the client who directs it can face accomplice liability.
Do Hawaii police need a warrant to GPS track my car?
Yes. HRS 803-44.7 requires police to obtain a search warrant or court order from a designated judge based on probable cause, and orders are capped at 60 days unless extended on a new probable cause showing. The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Jones also makes warrantless GPS attachment a Fourth Amendment search.
Updates
Corrected the employer section to cover HRS 378-102, which makes it unlawful to require a location-tracking app on an employee personal phone, and replaced the open question about the HRS 803-48 civil remedy with the controlling statutory text excluding tracking-device data.
Governing law re-checked for recent changes
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 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 Smart Glasses Recording Laws (2026), Hawaii Recording Laws (2026): Hybrid Consent State Rules, Hawaii Audio Recording Laws: One-Party Consent Rules and Penalties
§ 803-41DefinitionsIn forcecited in 2 of our articles
As used in this part, unless the context clearly requires otherwise: "Aggrieved person" means a person who was party to any intercepted wire, oral, or electronic communication or a person against whom the interception was directed. "Aural transfer" means a transfer containing the human voice at any point between and including the point of origin and the point of reception. "Bait vehicle" means any vehicle used by law enforcement to further an investigation of and deter unauthorized entry into a motor vehicle or unauthorized control of propelled vehicles. "Communication common carrier" means any person engaged as a common carrier for hire in interstate or foreign communication by wire or radio or in intrastate, interstate, or foreign radio transmission of energy, except where reference is made to communication common carriers not subject to this part; provided that a person engaged in radio broadcasting, to the extent the person is so engaged, shall not be deemed a communication common carrier. "Contents" when used with respect to any wire, oral, or electronic communication, includes any information concerning the substance, purport, or meaning of that communication.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at capitol.hawaii.gov
Cited in 6 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2023
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Bonnell (Hawaii Supreme Court 1993, 75 Haw. 124)“…e history underlying Hawaii’s Electronic Eavesdropping Law, HRS §§ 803-41 to 803-50 (1985 and Supp. 1992), compel…”
- State v. Lester (Hawaii Supreme Court 1982, 64 Haw. 659)“…onstituted "bugging," in violation of Hawaii's Wiretap Law, HRS §§ 803-41 to 803-50. While "bugging" is defined a…”
- State v. Lo (Hawaii Supreme Court 1983, 66 Haw. 653)“…State and its agents is regulated by Hawaii’s Wiretap Law, HRS §§ 803-41 to 803-50. The law generally proscribes…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Hawaii Employee Monitoring Laws: Employer Rules (2026)
§ 803-44.7Application for authorization to install and use a mobile tracking deviceIn force
(a) A search warrant or court order must be obtained from the designated judge or any other circuit court judge or district court judge, if a circuit court judge has not been designated by the chief justice of the Hawaii supreme court, or is otherwise unavailable, to install a mobile tracking device. The order may authorize the use of that device within the jurisdiction of the court and outside that jurisdiction, if the device is installed in that jurisdiction. (b) If, upon application to the designated judge for a court order, the designated judge should satisfy itself that there are sufficient facts and circumstances contained within the application to establish probable cause to believe that the use of a mobile tracking device will discover the fruits, instrumentalities, or evidence of a crime or is relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at capitol.hawaii.gov
§ 803-48Recovery of civil damages authorizedIn forcecited in 15 of our articles
Any person whose wire, oral, or electronic communication is accessed, intercepted, disclosed, or used in violation of this part shall[:] (1) Have a civil cause of action against any person who accesses, intercepts, discloses, or uses, or procures any other person to access, intercept, disclose, or use the communications[;] and (2) Be entitled to recover from any such person: (A) The greater of[:] (i) The sum of the actual damages suffered by the plaintiff and any profits made by the violator as a result of the violation[;] or (ii) Statutory damages of the greater of $100 a day for each day of violation or $10,000; (B) Punitive damages, where appropriate; and (C) A reasonable attorney's fee and other litigation costs reasonably incurred. The aggrieved person may also seek and be awarded such preliminary, and other equitable or declaratory relief as may be appropriate. A good faith reliance on a court order shall constitute a complete defense to any civil action brought under this part. [L 1978, c 218, pt of §2; am L 1986, c 303, §8; am L 1989, c 164, §10; am L 2006, c 200, pt of §4]
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: Hawaii Dashcam Laws: Recording Rules, Audio Consent, and Legal Limits (2026), Hawaii Landlord-Tenant Recording Laws: Surveillance and Privacy Rights, Hawaii Medical Recording Laws: Patient Rights, HIPAA, and Consent Rules (2026)
Hawaii Revised Statutes, Chapter 711: OFFENSES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER
§ 711-1106.5Harassment by stalkingIn force
(1) A person commits the offense of harassment by stalking if, with intent to harass, annoy, or alarm another person, or in reckless disregard of the risk thereof, that person engages in a course of conduct involving pursuit, surveillance, or nonconsensual contact upon the other person on more than one occasion without legitimate purpose. (2) A person convicted under this section may be required to undergo a counseling program as ordered by the court. (3) For purposes of this section, "nonconsensual contact" means any contact that occurs without that individual's consent or in disregard of that person's express desire that the contact be avoided or discontinued. Nonconsensual contact includes direct personal visual or oral contact and contact via telephone, facsimile, or any form of electronic communication, as defined in section 711-1111(2), including electronic mail transmission. (4) Harassment by stalking is a misdemeanor. [L 1992, c 292, §2; am L 2003, c 68, §2; am L 2009, c 90, §2]
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at capitol.hawaii.gov
Cited in 5 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2024
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Loo (Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals 2024, 154 Haw. 41)“…not render the Harassment by Stalking statute vague. HRS § 711-1106.5 provides in relevant part as follows:…”
- State v. Hernandez. (Hawaii Supreme Court 2018, 143 Haw. 501)“…Revised Statutes (HRS) § 711-1106.5.1 1 HRS § 711-1106.5 (1993 & Supp. 2013) provides the follow…”
- State v. Holt (Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals 2007, 116 Haw. 403)“…r on appeal, we also bring to the circuit court’s attention HRS § 711-1106.5(2), which provides that “[a] person con…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
United States Code Title 18
§ 2261AStalkingIn forcecited in 56 of our articles
Whoever— travels in interstate or foreign commerce or is present within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or enters or leaves Indian country, with the intent to kill, injure, harass, intimidate, or place under surveillance with intent to kill, injure, harass, or intimidate another person, and in the course of, or as a result of, such travel or presence engages in conduct that— places that person in reasonable fear of the death of, or serious bodily injury to— that person; an immediate family member (as defined in section 115) of that person; a spouse or intimate partner of that person; or the pet, service animal, emotional support animal, or horse of that person; or causes, attempts to cause, or would be reasonably expected to cause substantial emotional distress to a person described in clause (i), (ii), or (iii) of subparagraph (A); or with the intent to kill, injure, harass, intimidate, or place under surveillance with intent to kill, injure, harass, or intimidate another person, uses the mail, any interactive computer service or electronic communication service or electronic communication system of interstate commerce, or any other…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 350 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Federal appeals courts have construed and upheld Section 2261A. United States v. Walker (2011) read in the course of, or as a result of such travel disjunctively, so pre-travel threats plus resulting fear sufficed. United States v. Amy Gonzalez (2018) held it neither overbroad nor vague and no First Amendment violation as applied.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- United States v. Walker (Court of Appeals for the First Circuit 2011, 665 F.3d 212)✓After emailing threats to his estranged wife, the defendant flew from Michigan to Puerto Rico and was arrested on arrival. The court read the disjunctive phrase in 2261A(1) to cover travel that itself places the target in reasonable fear, and upheld the stalking conviction.
- United States v. Amy Gonzalez (Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 2018, 905 F.3d 165)✓Relatives waged a years-long campaign against a mother that ended in a courthouse shooting. The court held 2261A is neither overbroad nor vague because it reaches harassing conduct, and that the mental states it lists are alternative means, not elements; convictions affirmed.
- United States v. Wills (Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit 2003, 346 F.3d 476)✓A burglary suspect pursued the witness who identified him at a preliminary hearing; the witness later died. The court held the evidence met each element of 2261A: travel from D.C. to Virginia, intent to harm or harass, and reasonable fear of death; conviction affirmed.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Federal Sexting Laws: Legal Consequences and Penalties, GPS Tracking Laws by State: Is It Legal to Put a Tracker on a Car? (2026), Alabama GPS Tracking Laws: Is It Legal to Put a Tracker on a Car? (2026)
Hawaii Revised Statutes, Chapter 378: EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES
§ 378-102Unlawful practicesIn force
It shall be unlawful for any employer to: (1) Require an employee to download a mobile application to the employee's personal communication device that enables the employee's location to be tracked or the employee's personal information to be revealed as a condition of employment or continued employment; or (2) Terminate, discharge, or otherwise discriminate against an employee for: (A) Refusing to download or refusing to consent to download to the employee's personal communication device, a mobile application that enables the employee's location to be tracked or the employee's personal information to be revealed; or (B) Opposing any practice forbidden by this part or filing a complaint, testifying, or assisting in any proceeding concerning an unlawful practice prohibited under this part. [L 2021, c 206, pt of §2]
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at capitol.hawaii.gov
§ 378-103ExceptionIn force
Nothing in this part shall be deemed to: (1) Repeal or affect any law, ordinance, rule, or regulation having the force and effect of law; (2) Apply to the United States government; (3) Conflict with or affect the application of security regulations in employment established by the United States or the State; (4) Apply if the employee consents to downloading the mobile application to the employee's personal communication device that enables the employee's location to be tracked or the employee's personal information to be revealed; or (5) Prohibit an employer from requiring an employee to carry or use an employer-owned communication device that enables the employee's location to be tracked. [L 2021, c 206, 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 706: DISPOSITION OF CONVICTED DEFENDANTS
§ 706-640Authorized finesIn forcecited in 7 of our articles
(1) A person who has been convicted of an offense may be sentenced to pay a fine not exceeding: (a) $50,000, when the conviction is of a class A felony, murder in the first or second degree, or attempted murder in the first or second degree; (b) $25,000, when the conviction is of a class B felony; (c) $10,000, when the conviction is of a class C felony; (d) $2,000, when the conviction is of a misdemeanor; (e) $1,000, when the conviction is of a petty misdemeanor or a violation; (f) Any higher amount equal to double the pecuniary gain derived from the offense by the defendant; (g) Any higher or lower amount specifically authorized by statute. (2) Notwithstanding section 706-641, the court shall impose a mandatory fine upon any defendant convicted of theft in the first or second degree committed by receiving stolen property as set forth in section 708-830(7). The fine imposed shall be the greater of double the value of the stolen property received or $25,000 in the case of a conviction for theft in the first degree; or the greater of double the value of the stolen property received or $10,000 in the case of a conviction for theft in the second degree.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at capitol.hawaii.gov
Cited in 21 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Yong Shik Won (Hawaii Supreme Court 2015, 137 Haw. 330)“…y days.” HRS § 701-107(4) (Supp. 2005). 8 HRS § 706-640(1)(e). 9 HRS § 706-60…”
- Adams v. State (Hawaii Supreme Court 2003, 103 Haw. 214)“…ssibility of suspension of sentence or parole.” Pursuant to HRS § 706-640 (Supp.1997), the maximum possible fine…”
- State v. Silva (Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals 1999, 91 Haw. 111)“…n or upon premises. (2) Simple trespass is a violation. HRS § 706-640 (Supp.1998) provides that a person conv…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Hawaii Age of Consent Laws: Statutes, Penalties and Reporting, Hawaii Felony Classes and Misdemeanor Penalties (2026), Hawaii Theft Laws: Felony Threshold, Degrees and Shoplifting (2026)
§ 706-660Sentence of imprisonment for class B and C felonies; ordinary terms; discretionary termsIn forcecited in 10 of our articles
(1) Except as provided in subsection (2), a person who has been convicted of a class B or class C felony may be sentenced to an indeterminate term of imprisonment except as provided for in section 706-660.1 relating to the use of firearms in certain felony offenses and section 706-606.5 relating to repeat offenders. When ordering such a sentence, the court shall impose the maximum length of imprisonment which shall be as follows: (a) For a class B felony--ten years; and (b) For a class C felony--five years. The minimum length of imprisonment shall be determined by the Hawaii paroling authority in accordance with section 706-669. (2) A person who has been convicted of a class B or class C felony for any offense under part IV of chapter 712 may be sentenced to an indeterminate term of imprisonment; provided that this subsection shall not apply to sentences imposed under sections 706-606.5, 706-660.1, 712-1240.5, 712-1240.8 as that section was in effect prior to July 1, 2016, 712-1242, 712-1245, 712-1249.5, 712‑1249.6, 712-1249.7, and 712-1257.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at capitol.hawaii.gov
Cited in 78 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Gaylord (Hawaii Supreme Court 1995, 78 Haw. 127)“…r alia, by an indeterminate ten-year term of imprisonment. HRS § 706-660(1) (Supp.1992). . We recognize th…”
- State v. Soto (Hawaii Supreme Court 1997, 84 Haw. 229)“…murder was a class B felony and was punishable pursuant to HRS § 706-660 (1985), 21 “which delineat…”
- State v. Rivera (Hawaii Supreme Court 2004, 106 Haw. 146)“…to the amendments made by Act 102 (1965), the commentary to HRS § 706-660 (1976) states, inter alia: In 1965…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Hawaii Phone Call Recording Laws: One-Party Consent Rules for Calls, Hawaii Security Camera Laws: Residential and Business Surveillance Rules, Hawaii Voyeurism Laws: Hidden Camera Penalties and Privacy Protections
Sources and References
- HRS 803-42 - Interception prohibited; mobile tracking devices (Class C felony)(capitol.hawaii.gov)
- HRS 803-41 - Definitions (tracking device)(capitol.hawaii.gov)
- HRS 803-44.7 - Application for authorization to install and use a mobile tracking device(capitol.hawaii.gov)
- HRS 711-1106.5 - Harassment by stalking(capitol.hawaii.gov)
- HB2014 (2024) - Location tracker harassment bill, measure status(capitol.hawaii.gov)
- 18 U.S.C. 2261A - Stalking(law.cornell.edu)
- United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012)(law.cornell.edu)
- HRS 378-102 - Unlawful practices (employer location-tracking apps on personal devices)(capitol.hawaii.gov)
- HRS 378-103 - Exception (employee consent; employer-owned devices)(capitol.hawaii.gov)
- HRS 803-48 - Recovery of civil damages authorized(capitol.hawaii.gov)