Hawaii
Hawaii Surveillance Camera Laws: Complete 2026 Guide
Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited August 16, 2026). · Reviewed by the RecordingLaw editorial team. · Law checked current as of August 16, 2026. · 6 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content
Hawaii allows security cameras on your own property but prohibits recording in any private place without consent under HRS 711-1111. Audio recording follows a one-party consent rule under HRS 803-42, with a stricter all-party standard for private spaces. Hawaii's constitution (Article I, Section 6) provides stronger privacy protections than most states.
Overview of Hawaii Surveillance Camera Laws
Hawaii does not have a single statute that governs all surveillance cameras. Instead, multiple laws work together to regulate how cameras, recording devices, and monitoring equipment can be used across the state. The key statutes include HRS 711-1110.9 (violation of privacy in the first degree), HRS 711-1111 (violation of privacy in the second degree), and HRS 803-42 (interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications).
What sets Hawaii apart from many other states is its explicit constitutional right to privacy. Article I, Section 6 of the Hawaii State Constitution states: "The right of the people to privacy is recognized and shall not be infringed without the showing of a compelling state interest." This provision was added in 1978 and gives Hawaii residents stronger privacy protections than the federal Constitution provides.
Article I, Section 7 further protects against "unreasonable searches, seizures and invasions of privacy," a provision specifically designed to address electronic surveillance techniques.
The central concept running through all of Hawaii's surveillance laws is the "private place." Under Hawaii law, a private place is defined as a location where a person may reasonably expect to be safe from casual or hostile intrusion or surveillance. It does not include any place to which the public or a substantial group has access.
Home Security Camera Laws in Hawaii
Hawaii law permits homeowners to install security cameras on their own property to deter crime, monitor deliveries, and protect their household. No state registration or permit is required for residential security cameras.
Where You Can Place Home Security Cameras
You can legally place cameras in these areas of your property:
- Front door and porch areas for monitoring visitors and package deliveries
- Driveways and carports to record vehicle and visitor activity
- Exterior walls aimed at your own property, yard, and property boundaries
- Common living areas inside your home, such as living rooms and kitchens, with the knowledge of household members
- Backyards to monitor your own property
Where You Cannot Place Home Security Cameras
Cameras become illegal under HRS 711-1111(1)(d) when they are installed or used in any private place without the consent of the person or persons entitled to privacy. Prohibited placements include:
- Bathrooms and restrooms in your home where guests or household members expect privacy
- Guest bedrooms where visitors are staying overnight
- Cameras aimed directly into a neighbor's windows or interior living spaces
- Any private area where someone could reasonably expect to be free from surveillance
Under HRS 711-1111, installing or using any device for observing, recording, amplifying, or broadcasting sounds or events in a private place without consent is a misdemeanor offense.
Ring Doorbells and Smart Cameras
Video doorbells and smart security cameras from brands like Ring, Nest, and Arlo are legal in Hawaii. These devices typically record your own porch, entryway, and the public sidewalk or street in front of your home. Since these areas are not private places under Hawaii law, recording is permitted.
If a doorbell camera captures a wide field of view that includes a neighbor's windows or interior living spaces, this could raise privacy concerns under HRS 711-1111. Aim smart cameras to focus on your own property and public areas.
Audio Recording on Home Security Cameras
Many modern security cameras include microphones. Audio recording in Hawaii is governed by HRS 803-42, which follows a one-party consent rule. You can legally record a conversation if you are a party to it or if at least one participant has consented.
However, Hawaii's privacy law under HRS 711-1111 adds a critical restriction. It is illegal to install or use any device in a private place to record, amplify, or broadcast sounds that would not normally be audible outside that private place, unless everyone entitled to privacy in that location has consented.
For outdoor cameras that pick up ambient sounds or conversations of passersby in public areas, the one-party consent rule under HRS 803-42 generally applies. However, the safest approach is to post visible signage indicating that audio and video recording is in progress. This provides notice and helps establish implied consent.
Workplace Surveillance Camera Laws in Hawaii
Hawaii does not have a specific statute that governs workplace video surveillance. Employers in the state rely on general privacy statutes, constitutional privacy protections, and federal guidelines when installing cameras at work.
What Employers Can Do
Employers may install video surveillance cameras in the following common work areas:
- Lobbies, hallways, and reception areas for building security
- Parking lots to protect employees and company property
- Retail floors and cash register areas to prevent theft
- Warehouses and production areas to monitor operations and safety
- Loading docks and entry points for security purposes
While Hawaii law does not require signage for video-only surveillance, posting "Video Surveillance in Use" signs is strongly recommended. This practice reduces liability and aligns with the spirit of Hawaii's constitutional privacy protections.
What Employers Cannot Do
Hawaii's constitutional right to privacy and the statutes under HRS 711-1111 restrict employer surveillance in certain areas:
- Restrooms and changing areas are always off-limits for surveillance cameras
- Break rooms may raise privacy concerns depending on how they are used
- Private offices where employees meet with a reasonable expectation of confidentiality
- Any area where employees would reasonably expect to be free from observation
Audio Surveillance at Work
Employers who use cameras with audio capabilities must comply with HRS 803-42. Under the one-party consent rule, an employer cannot record private conversations between employees unless at least one party to the conversation has consented. Recording conversations in a private place without the consent of all parties may also violate HRS 711-1111.
The best practice for employers is to provide written notice to all employees that audio and video surveillance is in use and to obtain signed acknowledgments. This satisfies both the wiretapping statute and the privacy law.
Employee Notification
While Hawaii does not explicitly require employers to notify employees of video-only surveillance, providing clear notice is strongly recommended given the state's constitutional privacy protections. A workplace surveillance policy should outline where cameras are located, whether audio is recorded, how footage is stored and for how long, who has access to recordings, and the purpose of surveillance.
Hidden Cameras and Voyeurism Laws
Hawaii treats hidden camera crimes as serious offenses. The state has two primary statutes addressing surveillance-based privacy violations, with the more severe offense carrying felony penalties.
HRS 711-1110.9: Violation of Privacy in the First Degree
HRS 711-1110.9 makes it a Class C felony to intentionally or knowingly install or use any device in a private place, without the consent of the person entitled to privacy, to observe, record, amplify, or broadcast another person in a stage of undress or sexual activity.
The Hawaii Legislature enacted this statute after finding that existing privacy laws did not adequately distinguish between general surreptitious recording and the more severe act of recording someone while undressed or engaged in sexual activity. The Legislature determined that using a hidden device to capture such images merits a higher penalty.
A related second-degree offense, added by the same 2003 amendment (Act 48), covers "video voyeurism" in public places: it is a misdemeanor under HRS 711-1111(1)(f), not this section, to secretly photograph or record images underneath another person's clothing while in a public setting.
The statute was further expanded to cover the knowing disclosure of intimate images without consent (sometimes called "revenge porn") and the creation or distribution of certain deep fake images or videos.
Penalties for first degree violation of privacy:
| Offense Type | Classification | Maximum Prison Time | Maximum Fine |
|---|---|---|---|
| Recording undress/sexual activity in private place | Class C Felony | Up to 5 years | Up to $10,000 |
| Disclosure of intimate images without consent | Class C Felony | Up to 5 years | Up to $10,000 |
Courts may also order the destruction of any recording made in violation of this section. Any recording not destroyed must be sealed and kept confidential.
HRS 711-1111: Violation of Privacy in the Second Degree
HRS 711-1111 covers a broader range of surveillance violations. A person commits this offense if they intentionally:
- (a) Trespass on property for the purpose of subjecting anyone to eavesdropping or other surveillance in a private place
- (b) Peer or peep into a window or other opening of a dwelling or structure adapted for overnight accommodation, to spy on the occupant or invade their privacy with a lewd or unlawful purpose
- (c) Trespass on property for the sexual gratification of the actor
- (d) Install or use any device in a private place, without consent, for observing, recording, amplifying, or broadcasting sounds or events (other than someone undressing or in sexual activity, which is covered by HRS 711-1110.9)
- (e) Install or use outside a private place any device for hearing, recording, amplifying, or broadcasting sounds originating in that private place that would not normally be audible or comprehensible outside
- (f) Covertly record or broadcast an image of another person's intimate area underneath clothing, using any device, while that person is in a public place and without that person's consent
Subsection (3) defines the terms that subsection (1)(f) turns on. "Intimate areas" means any portion of a person's underwear, pubic area, anus, buttocks, vulva, genitals, or female breast. "Intimate areas underneath clothing" expressly does not include intimate areas visible through a person's clothing or intimate areas exposed in public. "Public place" means an area generally open to the public, whether or not privately owned, including streets, sidewalks, parks, parking lots, buses, stores, and restaurants.
Violation of privacy in the second degree is a misdemeanor, punishable by up to 1 year in jail and a fine of up to $2,000.
Peeping Tom Laws
Subsection (1)(b) of HRS 711-1111 specifically addresses traditional peeping behavior. It is illegal to peer or peep into a window or other opening of a dwelling for the purpose of spying on the occupant or invading their privacy with a lewd or unlawful purpose, under circumstances where a reasonable person in the dwelling would not expect to be observed.
This covers both the traditional act of looking through someone's window and using technology like binoculars or zoom lenses to observe activities inside a home from a distance.
Audio Recording Laws (One-Party Consent)
Hawaii follows a one-party consent rule for audio recording under HRS 803-42, but with an important exception for private places.
What HRS 803-42 Says
It is a Class C felony to intentionally intercept any wire, oral, or electronic communication without authorization. However, the statute provides an exception: a person may intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication when that person is a party to the communication or when one of the parties has given prior consent.
The Private Place Exception
While HRS 803-42 allows one-party consent for general audio recording, HRS 711-1111(1)(e) creates a stricter standard for private places. It is illegal to install or use any device outside a private place to hear, record, amplify, or broadcast sounds that originate inside a private place and would not normally be audible or comprehensible outside that place, without the consent of all parties.
This means that if you place a recording device to capture conversations happening inside someone's home, office, or other private space, one-party consent is not enough. You need the consent of the people inside that private place.
What One-Party Consent Means in Practice
If you are part of a conversation, whether in person, on the phone, or through electronic means, you can legally record it without telling the other participants, as long as the conversation takes place in a public setting or a place that does not qualify as a private place under Hawaii law.
You cannot, however, place a hidden recording device to capture conversations between other people when you are not present and no party to the conversation has consented. Doing so is illegal wiretapping.
Penalties for Illegal Recording
| Violation | Classification | Maximum Penalty |
|---|---|---|
| Illegal interception (HRS 803-42) | Class C Felony | Up to 5 years in prison, up to $10,000 fine |
| Recording in private place (HRS 711-1111) | Misdemeanor | Up to 1 year in jail, up to $2,000 fine |
| Civil liability (HRS 803-48) | Civil | Actual damages plus profits, or $10,000 minimum, plus attorney fees |
Under HRS 803-48, any person whose communication is illegally intercepted may bring a civil lawsuit. The court may award actual damages and any profits made by the violator, or statutory damages of $100 per day for each day of violation or $10,000, whichever is greater. Punitive damages, attorney fees, and litigation costs may also be awarded.
Recording Law Enforcement
Hawaii law does not prohibit recording law enforcement officers performing their duties in a public place or under circumstances where the officer has no reasonable expectation of privacy. This right was confirmed through HRS 711-1111(1)(d), which explicitly states it shall not prohibit recording law enforcement officers in public. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers Hawaii, has also upheld the right to record police in public.
Neighbor Disputes Over Security Cameras
Disagreements between neighbors about security cameras are common in Hawaii, particularly in densely populated areas on Oahu and Maui. Hawaii's strong constitutional privacy protections give residents more grounds for privacy claims than in many other states.
When a Neighbor's Camera Is Legal
A neighbor's security camera is generally legal if it:
- Is aimed at the neighbor's own property, such as their driveway, porch, or yard
- Captures public areas like sidewalks and streets as part of its field of view
- Records only video in areas visible from public spaces
- Does not intentionally peer into your windows or private enclosed spaces
When a Neighbor's Camera May Be Illegal
A neighbor's camera may violate Hawaii law if it:
- Is deliberately aimed to look inside your home through windows, violating HRS 711-1111(1)(b)
- Records your fully enclosed backyard from an elevated position, capturing areas hidden from public view
- Records audio of your private conversations without your consent
- Is a hidden camera placed on your property without your knowledge, constituting trespass under HRS 711-1111(1)(a)
Steps to Resolve a Camera Dispute
-
Talk to your neighbor. Many disputes arise from cameras that were not intentionally aimed at your property. A polite conversation can often resolve the issue.
-
Document the situation. If the camera clearly invades your privacy, photograph the camera's position and angle to show what it can capture.
-
Send a written request. Ask your neighbor in writing to adjust the camera angle or reposition it.
-
Contact local authorities. If you believe a neighbor is using a camera to spy on you in a private area, file a police report. Violations of HRS 711-1111 are criminal misdemeanors.
-
Consult an attorney. Hawaii's constitutional right to privacy under Article I, Section 6 may provide grounds for a civil invasion of privacy lawsuit, even in situations that might not be actionable in other states.
Physical Solutions
You can take steps to block an intrusive camera's view:
- Install privacy fencing along your property line
- Plant tall hedges, banana plants, or tropical trees to create natural barriers
- Use window film, curtains, or blinds to block interior views
- Adjust outdoor lighting to reduce camera effectiveness at night
Nanny Cam Laws in Hawaii
Nanny cameras used to monitor caregivers in your home are subject to specific rules under Hawaii law.
Where You Can Place a Nanny Cam
Video-only nanny cams are legal in common areas of your home:
- Living rooms and family rooms where childcare takes place
- Kitchens and dining areas
- Playrooms and nurseries
- Hallways and entryways
Where You Cannot Place a Nanny Cam
Under HRS 711-1111, you cannot place cameras in areas where the caregiver has a reasonable expectation of privacy:
- Bathrooms used by the caregiver
- Bedrooms designated for a live-in caregiver's private use
- Any room where the caregiver changes clothes or has a reasonable expectation of privacy
Audio on Nanny Cams
If your nanny cam records audio, you must comply with both HRS 803-42 and HRS 711-1111. Since your home is a private place and you are not present during the conversations being recorded, you cannot rely on one-party consent.
The safest and recommended approach is to:
- Inform your caregiver in writing that both audio and video recording takes place in the home
- Specify which rooms have cameras
- Have the caregiver sign an acknowledgment
- Consider disabling audio recording if the caregiver objects
Failure to disclose audio recording could expose you to criminal liability under the wiretapping statute (Class C felony) or a civil lawsuit under HRS 803-48.
Notification Best Practices
While Hawaii law does not explicitly require you to disclose video-only nanny cams, notifying the caregiver in writing is strongly recommended. Written disclosure protects you from potential privacy claims and establishes clear expectations. Include the camera locations, whether audio is recorded, and how footage will be used and stored.
HOA and Condominium Surveillance Rules
Hawaii has a large number of condominium and homeowner association communities, particularly on Oahu. HOA and condo association rules can add restrictions beyond what state law requires.
Common HOA Camera Restrictions
Your HOA's covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&Rs) may include rules about:
- Camera placement on exterior walls, lanais, or common elements
- Aesthetic requirements for camera visibility and mounting
- Prohibitions on cameras aimed at common areas managed by the association
- Requirements to notify the board or management before installation
Association Cameras in Common Areas
HOAs and condominium associations in Hawaii can install surveillance cameras in common areas such as lobbies, parking garages, pool areas, elevators, and hallways. However, the association should avoid recording in areas where residents expect privacy, such as inside individual units. Audio recording in common areas generally requires notice and consent from residents.
Before installing cameras in an HOA or condo community, review your governing documents and contact the board or management company for guidance.
Penalties Summary for Surveillance Violations in Hawaii
| Violation | Statute | Classification | Max Jail/Prison | Max Fine |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Recording undress/sexual activity in private place | HRS 711-1110.9 | Class C Felony | Up to 5 years | $10,000 |
| Disclosure of intimate images without consent | HRS 711-1110.9 | Class C Felony | Up to 5 years | $10,000 |
| Secret upskirt recording in public | HRS 711-1111(1)(f) | Misdemeanor | Up to 1 year | $2,000 |
| Trespass for eavesdropping/surveillance | HRS 711-1111(1)(a) | Misdemeanor | Up to 1 year | $2,000 |
| Peeping into a dwelling | HRS 711-1111(1)(b) | Misdemeanor | Up to 1 year | $2,000 |
| Surveillance device in private place | HRS 711-1111(1)(d) | Misdemeanor | Up to 1 year | $2,000 |
| Recording private sounds from outside | HRS 711-1111(1)(e) | Misdemeanor | Up to 1 year | $2,000 |
| Illegal wiretapping/interception | HRS 803-42 | Class C Felony | Up to 5 years | $10,000 |
| Civil damages for illegal interception | HRS 803-48 | Civil | N/A | Actual damages plus profits, or $10,000 minimum (whichever is greater), plus attorney fees |
Related Hawaii Camera and Privacy Laws
- Hawaii Recording Laws covers the consent rule that governs camera audio in Hawaii.
- Hawaii Security Camera Recording Rules explains the recording-law side of camera use.
- Hawaii Biometric Privacy Laws addresses facial recognition and biometric data.
- Hawaii Ring Doorbell Laws covers video doorbell rules in Hawaii.
Common Camera Questions
These national guides answer the most common surveillance camera questions:
- HOA Security Camera Rules
- Neighbor Security Camera Laws
- Nanny Cam Laws
- Workplace Surveillance Camera Laws
- Landlord Security Camera Laws
More Hawaii Laws
- Hawaii Data Privacy Laws: Constitutional Privacy & Consumer Rights (2026)
- Hawaii Drone Laws 2026: Trespass, Privacy & Warrants
- Hawaii Restraining Order Laws (2026): How to Get a Protective Order
- Hawaii Sexting Laws: Legal Consequences and Penalties
Frequently Asked Questions
Are home security cameras legal in Hawaii?
Yes. Hawaii homeowners can legally install security cameras on their own property. Cameras can record outdoor areas such as driveways, porches, and yards, as well as common indoor areas like living rooms and kitchens. However, cameras cannot be placed in areas where others have a reasonable expectation of privacy, such as bathrooms or guest bedrooms. Under HRS 711-1111, installing a surveillance device in a private place without consent is a misdemeanor. If the camera records someone undressing or in sexual activity, the offense is a Class C felony under HRS 711-1110.9.
Can my neighbor legally point a security camera at my house in Hawaii?
It depends on what the camera captures. A neighbor's camera may legally record their own property and public areas like sidewalks, even if your home appears in the background. However, if the camera is deliberately aimed to peer into your windows or record activities inside your home, it could violate HRS 711-1111(1)(b) (peeping into a dwelling) or HRS 711-1111(1)(d) (surveillance device in a private place). Hawaii's constitutional right to privacy under Article I, Section 6 provides additional protections that may support a civil claim even in borderline situations.
Is it legal to use a nanny cam in Hawaii?
Video-only nanny cams are legal in common areas of your home such as living rooms, kitchens, and playrooms. Cameras cannot be placed in bathrooms or private bedrooms used by the caregiver. If the nanny cam records audio, you must comply with HRS 803-42 and HRS 711-1111. Because your home is a private place and you are not present during recorded conversations, one-party consent does not apply. You should inform the caregiver in writing that both audio and video recording takes place and obtain their signed acknowledgment.
Is Hawaii a one-party or two-party consent state for recording?
Hawaii is generally a one-party consent state under HRS 803-42. You can record a conversation if you are a party to it or if at least one participant has consented. However, there is an important exception under HRS 711-1111(1)(e): recording sounds inside a private place that would not normally be audible outside requires the consent of all persons entitled to privacy in that location. This means Hawaii effectively requires all-party consent for recordings in private places like homes and offices.
What are the penalties for illegal surveillance in Hawaii?
Penalties depend on the specific violation. Recording someone undressing or in sexual activity in a private place under HRS 711-1110.9 is a Class C felony, carrying up to 5 years in prison and a $10,000 fine. General surveillance violations under HRS 711-1111, such as installing a hidden camera in a private place or peeping into a dwelling, are misdemeanors punishable by up to 1 year in jail and a $2,000 fine. Illegal wiretapping under HRS 803-42 is a Class C felony with up to 5 years in prison and a $10,000 fine. Victims may also file civil lawsuits under HRS 803-48 and recover a minimum of $10,000 in statutory damages plus attorney fees.
Updates
Updated the description of HRS 711-1111(1)(f) to the current statutory text, which covers covertly recording an image of another person’s intimate area underneath clothing while that person is in a public place and without consent, and added the statute’s definitions of the terms it uses.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
Corrected the public-place upskirt-recording misdemeanor's statute attribution: it is HRS 711-1111(1)(f) (violation of privacy in the second degree), not HRS 711-1110.9 (violation of privacy in the first degree, which is a Class C felony only per its own subsection (4)).
Governing law re-checked for recent changes
Fixed the Penalties Summary table's HRS 803-48 civil-damages row, which stated the $10,000 statutory minimum as additive to actual damages; the statute makes it a greater-of alternative, matching the article's own earlier correct table and the statute text.
Governing law re-checked for recent changes
Reviewed and approved by an editor
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 711: OFFENSES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER
§ 711-1111Violation of privacy in the second degreeIn forcecited in 20 of our articles
(1) A person commits the offense of violation of privacy in the second degree if, except in the execution of a public duty or as authorized by law, the person intentionally: (a) Trespasses on property for the purpose of subjecting anyone to eavesdropping or other surveillance in a private place; (b) Peers or peeps into a window or other opening of a dwelling or other structure adapted for sojourn or overnight accommodations for the purpose of spying on the occupant thereof or invading the privacy of another person with a lewd or unlawful purpose, under circumstances in which a reasonable person in the dwelling or other structure would not expect to be observed; (c) Trespasses on property for the sexual gratification of the actor; (d) Installs or uses, or both, in any private place, without consent of the person or persons entitled to privacy therein, any means or device for observing, recording, amplifying, or broadcasting sounds or events in that place other than another person in a stage of undress or sexual activity; provided that this paragraph shall not prohibit a person from making a video or audio recording or taking a photograph of a law enforcement officer while the…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at capitol.hawaii.gov
Cited in 10 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Hawaii decisions have construed HRS 711-1111 mainly alongside neighboring statutes. State v. Kaakimaka (2026) read subsections (1)(d) and (1)(e) as an inside and outside pair while construing the first-degree offense. State v. Lee (1984) treated 711-1111(1) as drawn from Model Penal Code 250.12 in reading the wiretap statute.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Lee (Hawaii Supreme Court 1984, 67 Haw. 307)✓An undercover officer wearing a recorder taped conversations in a doctor's private office; construing the wiretap consent provision drawn from HRS 711-1111(1)(b) and (c), the court held a body-worn device is not an "installation" in a private place, so the tapes were admissible.
- State v. Kaakimaka (Hawaii Supreme Court 2026)“…711-1110.9 and second degree violation of privacy under HRS § 711-1111 (2014 & Supp. 2025) convinces me that…”
- State v. Lester (Hawaii Supreme Court 1982, 64 Haw. 659)“…The Code provision covering wiretapping and eavesdropping, HRS § 711-1111, permits "consensual eavesdropping".…”
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
§ 711-1110.9Violation of privacy in the first degreeIn forcecited in 19 of our articles
(1) A person commits the offense of violation of privacy in the first degree if, except in the execution of a public duty or as authorized by law: (a) The person intentionally or knowingly installs or uses, or both, in any private place, without consent of the person or persons entitled to privacy therein, any device for observing, recording, amplifying, or broadcasting another person in a stage of undress or sexual activity in that place; (b) The person knowingly discloses or threatens to disclose an image or video of another identifiable person either in the nude, as defined in section 712‑1210, or engaging in sexual conduct, as defined in section 712-1210, without the consent of the depicted person, with intent to harm substantially the depicted person with respect to that person's health, safety, business, calling, career, education, financial condition, reputation, or personal relationships or as an act of revenge or retribution; or (c) The person intentionally creates or discloses or threatens to disclose an image or video of a composite fictitious person depicted in the nude as defined in section 712-1210, or engaged in sexual conduct as defined in section 712-1210, that…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-03 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at capitol.hawaii.gov
Cited in 7 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Hawaii courts have construed HRS 711-1110.9 in the Kaakimaka litigation. State v. Kaakimaka (2026) held subsection (1)(a) requires the device, or the person using it, to be inside the private place, and reversed a conviction where the phone stayed outside. A 2025 Kaakimaka opinion upheld the charge as drawn.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Kaakimaka (Hawaii Supreme Court 2026)✓A man stood outside a vacation home and aimed his phone at a bathroom window where a 15-year-old was showering; the court held the statute requires the device or the person using it to be inside the private place, found the evidence insufficient, and reversed the conviction.
- State v. Kaakimaka. ICA s.d.o., filed 01/31/2025 [ada], 155 Haw. 297. Opinion by Hiraoka, J. Concurring in Part and Dissenting in Part. Opinion by Guidry J. Concurring in Part and Dissenting in Part. Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 05/16/2025. S.Ct. Order Accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 06/23/2025. S.Ct. Amended Order Accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 06/23/2025 [ada]. (Hawaii Supreme Court 2025)✓Charged with recording a girl showering, the defendant argued his indictment was defective because it did not define "private place"; the court held that term is an attendant circumstance whose statutory definition need not be alleged, and upheld the charge.
- State v. Olive (Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals 2025)“…and (b). These offenses are classified as Class C felonies. HRS § 711-1110.9(2) (2014 & 2018 Supp.). HR…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Hawaii Landlord-Tenant Recording Laws: Surveillance and Privacy Rights, Hawaii Laws on Recording in Public: Your Rights in Public Spaces, Hawaii School Recording Laws: Student Privacy, FERPA, and Classroom Rules (2026)
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 Dashcam Laws: Recording Rules, Audio Consent, and Legal Limits (2026), Hawaii Medical Recording Laws: Patient Rights, HIPAA, and Consent Rules (2026), Hawaii Phone Call Recording Laws: One-Party Consent Rules for Calls
§ 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 Security Camera Laws: Residential and Business Surveillance Rules, Hawaii Video Recording Laws: Privacy Rules and Consent Requirements, Hawaii Voyeurism Laws: Hidden Camera Penalties and Privacy Protections
Sources and References
- HRS 711-1110.9: Violation of Privacy in the First Degree(capitol.hawaii.gov).gov
- HRS 711-1111: Violation of Privacy in the Second Degree(capitol.hawaii.gov).gov
- HRS 803-42: Interception of Wire, Oral, or Electronic Communications(capitol.hawaii.gov).gov
- Hawaii Constitution Article I, Section 6: Right to Privacy(capitol.hawaii.gov).gov
- Hawaii Constitution Article I, Section 7: Searches, Seizures and Invasion of Privacy(capitol.hawaii.gov).gov
- HRS 803-48: Recovery of Civil Damages Authorized(law.justia.com)
- Hawaii State Constitution - Legislative Reference Bureau(lrb.hawaii.gov).gov