Hawaii Recording Laws (2026): HRS 803-42 + 711-1111 Hybrid
Quick Answer: Is Hawaii a One-Party or All-Party Consent State?
Hawaii is a HYBRID consent state. Under HRS § 803-42(b)(3)(A), a private actor who is a party to a wire, oral, or electronic communication may intercept (record) it without notifying the other parties. Inside a private place, however, HRS § 711-1111(1)(d) layers a separate misdemeanor all-party-consent rule on top.
The simple binary "one-party state" label is incomplete for Hawaii. If you are a party to a phone call or in-person conversation in a public space, you may legally record under one-party consent. If you are recording inside a bedroom, bathroom, hotel room, locker room, or any other private place where the people present have a reasonable expectation of privacy, the all-party rule kicks in.
| Key Point | Answer |
|---|---|
| Consent Type | HYBRID (one-party default; all-party in private places) |
| Wiretap Statute | HRS § 803-42 |
| Private-Place Rule | HRS § 711-1111(1)(d) |
| Intimate-Imagery Felony | HRS § 711-1110.9 |
| Civil Remedies | HRS § 803-48 |
| Wiretap Penalty | Class C felony, up to 5 years and $10,000 |
| Privacy 2nd Degree Penalty | Misdemeanor (private-place all-party rule) |
| Privacy 1st Degree Penalty | Class C felony (undress, sexual, NCII, deepfake) |
| Civil Damages Floor | Greater of $100 per day or $10,000 |
| Canonical Case | State v. Okubo, 67 Haw. 197 (1984) |
Hawaii's recording regime is built on three statutory tiers. The wiretap-side felony lives in HRS § 803-42(a), which makes unlawful interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications a Class C felony. The private-place misdemeanor lives in HRS § 711-1111, which classifies installing or using a recording device in a private place without consent of the persons entitled to privacy as Violation of Privacy in the Second Degree. The intimate-imagery felony lives in HRS § 711-1110.9, which covers covert recording of undress or sexual activity, nonconsensual disclosure of nude or sexual images, and AI-generated deepfake intimate imagery as Violation of Privacy in the First Degree, a Class C felony.
Civil remedies are unusually strong. Under HRS § 803-48, a victim of unlawful interception may recover the greater of (i) actual damages plus violator profits, or (ii) statutory damages of the greater of $100 per day of violation or $10,000, plus punitive damages where appropriate, plus reasonable attorney's fees and costs.
Our recommended Digital Voice Recorder.
HRS 803-42 vs HRS 711-1111: The Hybrid Rule Explained
Hawaii recording law sits in two different chapters of the Hawaii Revised Statutes, and the interaction between them is the single most important concept on this page. Get the chapter split right and the rest of the analysis follows naturally.
HRS § 803-42: The One-Party Wiretap Statute
HRS § 803-42, titled "Interception, access, and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications, use of pen register, trap and trace device, and mobile tracking device prohibited," is Hawaii's general wiretap statute. Subsection (a) makes unlawful interception, use, or disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications a Class C felony.
Subsection (b)(3)(A) is the participant safe harbor. The statute provides:
"It shall not be unlawful under this part for a person not acting under color of law to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication when the person is a party to the communication or when one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to the interception unless the communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States or of this State."
Two ideas live in that sentence. First, a private actor (not police, not a government agent acting under color of law) who is a party to the conversation, or who has one party's prior consent, may intercept it without violating the Wiretap Act. That is the one-party-consent rule. Second, the safe harbor disappears if the recording is made for the purpose of committing a criminal or tortious act, such as blackmail, extortion, harassment, or fraud.
The Hawaii Supreme Court applied the one-party rule in State v. Okubo, 67 Haw. 197, 682 P.2d 79 (1984), holding that a recording made by a participant to a conversation does not violate the Hawaii Wiretap Act because one party consented. The court also held that the recording did not violate Article I, section 7 of the Hawaii Constitution under the circumstances. Okubo is the canonical Hawaii authority on the section 803-42(b)(3) one-party rule.
Two supplementary Hawaii Supreme Court cases fill in the edges. State v. Lo, 66 Haw. 653, 675 P.2d 754 (1983) held that section 803-42 does not authorize bugging of a private place unless the parties entitled to privacy consent. State v. Lee, 67 Haw. 307, 686 P.2d 816 (1984) held that wearing a body-mounted recording device by a consenting participant does not constitute an "installation" for purposes of section 803-42's color-of-law restriction; wired-informant and body-wire recordings by a consenting participant therefore remain lawful one-party recordings.
HRS § 711-1111: The Misdemeanor Private-Place Rule
HRS § 711-1111, titled "Violation of Privacy in the Second Degree," is the operative all-party-consent rule for recording inside a private place. It is a misdemeanor, not a felony. The Hawaii statute on its face provides that a person commits the offense if the person:
"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."
Two structural points are easy to miss. First, the section is keyed to the private place itself, not to whether the recorder is a party to the conversation. Even a participant in the conversation can violate section 711-1111 if the recording happens inside a private place without consent of the persons entitled to privacy. Second, the section carves out undress and sexual activity, because that conduct is governed by the more serious felony statute at section 711-1110.9.
A "private place" is a location where someone may reasonably expect to be safe from casual or hostile intrusion or surveillance. It does not include places where the public or a substantial group has access. Bedrooms, bathrooms, hotel rooms, locker rooms, lactation rooms, locked offices, and the interior of a private home are paradigm private places.
HRS § 711-1110.9: The Class C Felony Escalation
HRS § 711-1110.9, titled "Violation of Privacy in the First Degree," is a Class C felony. It consolidates three categories of intimate-imagery offenses into one statute:
- Subsection (1)(a): Intentionally installing or using a device, in any private place without consent, to observe, record, amplify, or broadcast another person in a stage of undress or sexual activity.
- Subsection (1)(b): Knowingly disclosing or threatening to disclose an image or video of an identifiable person in the nude or engaged in sexual conduct without consent, with intent to substantially harm the depicted person or as an act of revenge or retribution. This is the nonconsensual intimate imagery (NCII or "revenge porn") provision, added by Act 116 SLH 2014 and amended by Act 114 SLH 2018 to add threats and revenge or retribution intent.
- Subsection (1)(c): Intentionally creating or disclosing or threatening to disclose an image or video of a composite fictitious person depicted in the nude or engaged in sexual conduct that includes the recognizable physical characteristics of a known person, so that the image or video appears to depict the known person and not a composite. This is the deepfake provision, added by Act 59 SLH 2021.
All of Hawaii's intimate-imagery offenses (covert recording in a private place, NCII, and AI-deepfake intimate imagery) sit inside HRS section 711-1110.9. There is no separate Hawaii NCII statute outside section 711-1110.9.
How the Three Tiers Work Together
The chapter split produces a clean decision tree. Are you intercepting a wire, oral, or electronic communication? Section 803-42 applies, and you may rely on the participant safe harbor unless your purpose is criminal or tortious. Are you recording inside a private place? Section 711-1111(1)(d) layers an all-party-consent rule on top. Does the recording capture undress, sexual activity, or intimate imagery, or are you disclosing or creating intimate imagery of an identifiable person without consent? Section 711-1110.9 escalates the conduct to Class C felony.
When Does the Private-Place Exception Apply?
The private-place rule under section 711-1111(1)(d) is triggered by location, not by who is in the conversation. The legal test is whether the persons present in that place could "reasonably expect to be safe from casual or hostile intrusion or surveillance." Reasonable expectation of privacy is the same standard courts apply in Fourth Amendment search and seizure cases, with the question now framed for civilian recording.
Paradigm Private Places
Some locations are private places under nearly any reading of the statute:
- Bedrooms in a private home or rental.
- Bathrooms anywhere, including public restrooms (privacy attaches inside individual stalls and at toilets, sinks, and changing benches).
- Hotel rooms, vacation rentals, and short-term-stay units.
- Locker rooms and changing areas in gyms, schools, and workplaces.
- Lactation rooms and dedicated nursing rooms.
- Locked private offices with the door closed.
- The interior of a private vehicle when the vehicle is parked and the windows and doors create a closed enclosure (subject to multi-occupant analysis).
Locations That Are Not Private Places
Equally clear is that public spaces and shared, accessible work areas are not private places under section 711-1111. These include:
- Streets, sidewalks, beaches, public parks, and other places where the public has access.
- Public meeting rooms, including legislative chambers and county council rooms.
- Restaurants, retail floors, and common areas of office buildings.
- Open-plan office floors and shared conference rooms used for routine business.
State v. Lo, 66 Haw. 653, 675 P.2d 754 (1983), supplies the case authority underpinning the practical all-party rule for private-place audio surveillance. The Hawaii Supreme Court read section 803-42 as not authorizing bugging of a private place without consent, working alongside the section 711-1111(1)(d) prohibition. The two statutes operate in tandem.
Edge Cases and Ambiguity
The harder cases live in between. A doctor's examination room is a private place when the door is closed and the patient is undergoing examination. A semi-private hospital room shared with another patient may carry privacy expectations inside the curtains around each bed. An employee restroom is a private place; an employee break room shared with the public is not, unless physical configuration cues suggest otherwise.
When the analysis is close, the safer move is to treat the location as a private place, get all-party consent, and avoid placing the question in front of a judge.
Recording Phone Calls and Electronic Communications in Hawaii
Can You Record a Phone Call in Hawaii?
Yes. Under HRS § 803-42(b)(3)(A), a person who is a party to a wire, oral, or electronic communication may intercept (record) it without telling the other parties. The rule applies across modalities:
- Landline calls.
- Cell phone calls (including VoIP and over-the-top calling apps).
- Video calls and conferencing platforms (Zoom, Teams, Google Meet, FaceTime, WhatsApp).
- Voice messages and voicemail you receive.
The participant safe harbor disappears if your purpose is to commit a criminal or tortious act. So you may record a contentious call with a contractor for documentation purposes, but you may not record someone in order to extort money, harass them, or commit identity theft.
The Multistate Call Problem
If you call someone outside Hawaii, the rules in their state matter. A handful of states require all-party consent for wire and electronic communications:
- California
- Connecticut (mixed; varies by call type)
- Florida
- Illinois
- Maryland
- Massachusetts
- Montana
- Nevada (for phone calls under NRS 200.620)
- New Hampshire
- Pennsylvania
- Washington
When a Hawaii caller and a California recipient are on the same call, courts and regulators have generally applied the more protective state's rule as a practical matter. The conservative move is to either get all-party consent or audibly disclose at the start of the call that you are recording.
Federal Floor: ECPA
Federal law, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) at 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d), is also a one-party-consent floor. Hawaii's HRS section 803-42 matches the federal floor for interception of communications. ECPA does not preempt Hawaii's stricter section 711-1111 private-place rule.
Business Call Recording
Hawaii businesses that record customer calls for quality assurance, training, or compliance can rely on one-party consent under section 803-42, with a few practical safeguards. Common methods of obtaining or disclosing consent include:
- A pre-call announcement ("This call may be recorded for quality and training").
- A periodic beep tone during the call.
- Contractual recording authorizations in customer agreements.
Federal CFPB Regulation F at 12 C.F.R. Part 1006 imposes additional disclosure obligations on debt collectors contacting Hawaii consumers. Hawaii also has its own Collection Agencies law at HRS Chapter 443B, administered by the Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs.
Recording In-Person Conversations
Section 803-42(b)(3)(A) covers "oral" communications as well as wire and electronic, so an in-person conversation in which you participate is fair game under the same one-party rule, with the same private-place limit on top.
When In-Person Recording Is Legal
You may record an in-person conversation in Hawaii when:
- You are a participant in the conversation.
- The conversation is not occurring inside a private place where the other people have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
- Your purpose is not to commit a criminal or tortious act.
Common situations covered by the one-party rule include conversations in restaurants and cafes, on sidewalks and beaches, in retail stores, at public events and demonstrations, and in shared work areas where there is no privacy expectation.
When In-Person Recording Is Illegal
In-person recording in Hawaii becomes unlawful when:
- You are not a party to the conversation, you have no consent from any participant, and you do not have a court-authorized intercept order.
- You install or use a device inside a private place without consent of the persons entitled to privacy in that place (HRS § 711-1111(1)(d)).
- The recording captures undress, sexual activity, or intimate imagery (HRS § 711-1110.9 felony tier).
- Your purpose is to commit a criminal or tortious act.
Recording in Your Own Home
You can record conversations in your own home if you are participating. You cannot, however, plant a hidden microphone in a guest bedroom or bathroom and leave the room to capture conversations to which you are not a party. That conduct fits the section 711-1111(1)(d) misdemeanor profile, and if the device captures undress or sexual activity, the conduct rises to a section 711-1110.9 Class C felony.
Recording with Children Present
Family-court contexts produce some of the harder questions. As a parent, you may record conversations you participate in, including conversations with your co-parent during custody exchanges. You should not direct a child to secretly record the other parent. You should also not place a hidden device in a child's bedroom in the other parent's home. Family courts increasingly scrutinize these tactics and may exclude the recording or sanction the recording parent.
Recording Police and Government Officials in Hawaii
Hawaii has unusually strong protection for citizen recording of law enforcement. Two layers reinforce each other: an explicit state statutory carve-out at HRS § 711-1111(1)(d) added by Act 164 SLH 2016, and binding Ninth Circuit First Amendment precedent.
HRS § 711-1111(1)(d): The 2016 Statutory Right to Record
The lead authority on this question is the Hawaii statute itself. Act 164 SLH 2016 amended HRS § 711-1111(1)(d) to add an explicit carve-out:
"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 officer is in the performance of the officer's duties in a public place or under circumstances in which the officer has no reasonable expectation of privacy and the person is not interfering with the officer's ability to maintain safety and control, secure crime scenes and accident sites, protect the integrity and confidentiality of investigations, and protect the public safety and order."
That language gives Hawaii residents a directly enforceable state statutory right, independent of and broader than the federal First Amendment baseline. Five practical limits live in the proviso. The recording must be of a law enforcement officer performing official duties, the location must be a public place or a place where the officer has no reasonable expectation of privacy, and the recording person must not interfere with (i) safety and control, (ii) scene security, (iii) investigation integrity and confidentiality, or (iv) public safety and order.
Ninth Circuit First Amendment Authority: Fordyce and Askins
Hawaii sits in the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit has recognized a First Amendment right to film matters of public interest, including police activity, in publicly accessible areas. The two leading cases are:
- Fordyce v. City of Seattle, 55 F.3d 436 (9th Cir. 1995) (cited in Cheairs v. City of Seattle (9th Cir. 2025)). The Ninth Circuit recognized a First Amendment right to film matters of public interest, including the arrest of suspects and other police conduct, in public places.
- Askins v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 899 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 2018). The Ninth Circuit reaffirmed and extended Fordyce, holding that the First Amendment protects the right to photograph and record matters of public interest, including federal law-enforcement activity at public ports of entry, in publicly accessible areas. The court treated CBP's no-photography directive as a content-based restriction in a public forum subject to strict scrutiny. A 2020 settlement obligated CBP not to interfere with the First Amendment rights of members of the public to make and retain photographs and recordings of matters or events from publicly accessible areas at U.S. land ports of entry.
The Ninth Circuit framework binds federal court in Hawaii and is regularly cited in section 1983 civil-rights actions arising from interference with citizen recording of police activity.
What You Can Record
Practically, Hawaii residents may:
- Film traffic stops, including their own.
- Record arrests, detentions, and encounters happening in public.
- Document interactions with police, including comments and orders.
- Livestream police encounters from publicly accessible areas.
- Record federal law-enforcement officers (CBP, ICE, FPS, U.S. Marshals) acting in publicly accessible areas, including the Daniel K. Inouye International Airport CBP areas accessible to the public, the Honolulu Federal Building exterior, and Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam outside controlled-access perimeters.
What You Cannot Do
The state statutory carve-out and the Fordyce or Askins line do not let you:
- Trespass to capture footage.
- Physically interfere with an arrest, scene security, or an investigation.
- Stand inside a taped-off crime or accident scene.
- Refuse a lawful order to step back to a safe distance.
- Activate flashes or lights that compromise an officer's tactical position.
Open Meetings and Government Proceedings
Hawaii's Sunshine Law (open meetings law at HRS Chapter 92) generally allows recording of public meetings of state and county boards. State legislative proceedings, county council meetings, school board meetings, and most public hearings are open to recording. Some boards have local rules on equipment placement and audio capture; check the rules before deploying tripods or shotgun microphones.
Hidden Cameras, Voyeurism, and Intimate-Image Recording
Hawaii's hidden-camera and voyeurism rules cut across two statutes. Section 711-1111 supplies the misdemeanor floor; section 711-1110.9 supplies the Class C felony when intimate imagery is involved.
Trespassory Surveillance and Privacy Invasions Under § 711-1111
Beyond the headline private-place device rule at section 711-1111(1)(d), the broader statute reaches several other privacy invasions:
- Trespassory eavesdropping or surveillance: entering a private place for the purpose of surveilling or eavesdropping on the persons entitled to privacy in that place.
- Peeping or peering into a dwelling for spying or lewd purposes.
- Exterior listening devices: installing or using outside a private place any device to capture sounds that would not be audible from outside.
- Upskirt-style capture of intimate areas underneath clothing in public, when the intimate areas would not be visible to the public eye.
- Interception of private messages by telephone, electronic transmission, or other private means without consent of sender or receiver.
- Divulging unlawfully intercepted private messages.
All of these are misdemeanor Violation of Privacy in the Second Degree unless the conduct triggers the section 711-1110.9 felony elements.
Intimate-Imagery Felony Track Under § 711-1110.9
Section 711-1110.9 is the felony statute. Three subsections do most of the work:
- (1)(a) Covert intimate recording. Installing or using a device, in any private place without consent, to record another person in a stage of undress or sexual activity is a Class C felony.
- (1)(b) NCII (nonconsensual intimate imagery) and "revenge porn." Knowingly disclosing or threatening to disclose nude or sexual images of an identifiable person without consent, with intent to substantially harm the depicted person or as an act of revenge or retribution. The base offense was added by Act 116 SLH 2014; Act 114 SLH 2018 added the threats-to-disclose conduct and the revenge or retribution intent and required confidentiality and sealing of any images involved in the prosecution.
- (1)(c) AI-generated deepfake intimate imagery. Intentionally creating or disclosing or threatening to disclose a synthetic image or video that uses the recognizable physical characteristics of a known person, depicted nude or engaged in sexual conduct, with intent to substantially harm the depicted person. This is Hawaii's principal AI-deepfake recording statute, added by Act 59 SLH 2021.
The mens rea for subsections (1)(b) and (1)(c) is intent to substantially harm the depicted person (or, for (1)(b), an act of revenge or retribution). The penalty for any violation of section 711-1110.9 is a Class C felony, up to 5 years prison under HRS section 706-660 and up to a $10,000 fine under HRS section 706-640.
Property Owner Considerations
On private property, the property owner sets the rules within statutory limits. A homeowner may install a security camera at the front door, a doorbell camera, or driveway-facing exterior cameras without consent from passersby on a public sidewalk, because no one has a privacy expectation on the public street. A homeowner may not install a hidden camera inside a guest bedroom, bathroom, or other private space inside a home without the consent of guests entitled to privacy there.
If you are recording someone's likeness for business purposes (commercial, promotional, or training), have them complete a photo or video consent form so you have written authorization on file.
Criminal Penalties for Illegal Recording in Hawaii
Hawaii's penalty structure runs in three distinct tiers. Each tier rests on a different statute, with a different offense element and a different sentencing range. The tiers should never be conflated.
Tier 1: Wiretap Class C Felony Under HRS § 803-42(a)
Unlawful interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications is a Class C felony under HRS § 803-42(a). Class C felony sentencing in Hawaii is set by HRS § 706-660 (imprisonment) and HRS § 706-640 (fine).
| Offense | Statute | Class | Maximum Prison | Maximum Fine |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful interception | HRS § 803-42(a) | Class C felony | 5 years | $10,000 |
Tier 2: Misdemeanor Private-Place Rule Under HRS § 711-1111
Violation of Privacy in the Second Degree under HRS § 711-1111 is a misdemeanor. The statute reaches private-place device installation or use without consent, trespassory surveillance, peeping, exterior listening devices, upskirt capture, interception of private messages, and divulgence of intercepted messages. The misdemeanor classification is set by section 711-1111(4) itself.
| Offense | Statute | Class | Maximum Prison | Maximum Fine |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Violation of Privacy in the Second Degree | HRS § 711-1111 | Misdemeanor | 1 year | $2,000 |
The page-level point cannot be repeated too often: HRS section 711-1111 is not a felony statute. The felony privacy statute in Hawaii is section 711-1110.9, which is the next tier.
Tier 3: Intimate-Imagery Class C Felony Under HRS § 711-1110.9
Violation of Privacy in the First Degree under HRS § 711-1110.9 is a Class C felony. It applies when the conduct involves covert recording of undress or sexual activity in a private place, NCII or revenge-porn disclosure, or AI deepfake intimate imagery of a known person.
| Offense | Statute | Class | Maximum Prison | Maximum Fine |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Violation of Privacy in the First Degree | HRS § 711-1110.9 | Class C felony | 5 years | $10,000 |
A single course of conduct can implicate more than one tier. Surreptitiously recording a sexual encounter in a hotel room without the other person's consent could trigger section 803-42 (unlawful interception), section 711-1111(1)(d) (private-place misdemeanor), and section 711-1110.9(1)(a) (Class C felony for capturing undress or sexual activity), depending on the proof.
Civil Remedies Under HRS § 803-48
Beyond criminal penalties, Hawaii's wiretap chapter creates a robust civil remedy. The damages floor is structurally one of the strongest in the United States, and it is the single biggest reason victims of unlawful recording in Hawaii should consider a civil suit alongside any criminal complaint.
The Statutory Damages Formula
HRS § 803-48 provides:
"(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."
In plain language, a victim recovers the greater of:
- Actual damages plus violator profits, or
- Statutory damages of the greater of $100 per day of violation or $10,000.
Plus, where appropriate, punitive damages. Plus reasonable attorney's fees and litigation costs. Equitable and declaratory relief is also available.
Why the Floor Matters
The floor is not "$100 per day" alone, and it is not "$10,000" alone. It is the greater of the two. A short violation (say, 10 days) yields a $10,000 statutory floor. A long violation (say, 200 days) yields a $20,000 statutory floor under the per-day calculation. Either path gives the victim a recovery without needing to prove specific economic loss, which often matters most when the harm is reputational, emotional, or relational.
The fee-shifting provision is also doing real work. A reasonable attorney's fee award means that plaintiffs' lawyers can take section 803-48 cases on a contingency or hybrid arrangement, which lowers the practical barrier to filing.
Defenses
A good-faith reliance on a court order or legislative authorization is a complete defense to a section 803-48 civil claim. Otherwise, the defense playbook usually focuses on whether there was actually an "interception" within the meaning of section 803-42 (the participant safe harbor and the consent of one of the parties) and whether the statute of limitations has run.
Recording in the Workplace
Hawaii's hospitality, healthcare, and resort sectors generate the largest share of workplace recording questions in the state. The framework combines the section 803-42 one-party rule, the section 711-1111 private-place limit, and the federal NLRB overlay.
Can Your Employer Record You?
Generally yes, if the employer is a party to the conversation. Hawaii's section 803-42(b)(3)(A) one-party rule allows an employer-side participant to record without notifying the employee. Two important limits apply.
First, section 711-1111(1)(d) imposes a misdemeanor all-party rule whenever the recording occurs in any private place. Employee restrooms, lactation rooms, locker rooms, and (depending on configuration) off-duty break rooms all qualify. Hidden cameras inside any of those spaces are a section 711-1111 misdemeanor at minimum and a section 711-1110.9 Class C felony if the camera captures undress.
Second, federal NLRB law constrains overbroad employer no-recording rules. Stericycle, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 113 (Aug. 2, 2023), holds that an employer work rule (including a no-recording rule) is presumptively unlawful under Section 7 of the NLRA if a reasonable economically dependent employee could interpret it to chill protected concerted activity. The General Counsel must prove the rule has a reasonable tendency to chill Section 7 rights; the employer may rebut by proving a legitimate, substantial business interest that cannot be served by a more narrowly tailored rule. Stericycle remains binding Board law as of 2026.
Can You Record Your Employer?
Yes, as a one-party-consent state, Hawaii lets you record any conversation you are participating in with your boss, HR, coworkers, or anyone else at work. This is often important evidence for:
- Documenting harassment or discrimination.
- Recording performance reviews.
- Preserving verbal instructions or commitments.
- Protecting yourself in disputes about what was said.
Two cautions. Recording in private places (employee restrooms, lactation rooms) requires all-party consent under section 711-1111. And while recording is legal under state law, an employer policy against recording can still trigger discipline or termination, subject to NLRB Stericycle limits on overbroad rules.
NLRB GC 25-05 and GC 25-07: What Changed in 2025
Two NLRB General Counsel memoranda from 2025 are worth flagging because they are easy to misread.
NLRB GC 25-05 (Feb. 14, 2025), issued by Acting General Counsel William B. Cowen, rescinded numerous Biden-era General Counsel memoranda and signaled a return to certain pre-2021 enforcement priorities. Stericycle remains binding Board precedent until the Board itself overrules it. GC 25-05 is a housekeeping rescission that narrows General Counsel enforcement priorities, not a reinstatement of the older Boeing categorical work-rule analysis.
NLRB GC 25-07 (June 25, 2025) declares surreptitious recording of collective-bargaining sessions a per se violation of Sections 8(a)(5) and 8(b)(3) (duty to bargain in good faith). It builds on Bartlett-Collins Co., 237 NLRB 770 (1978). It is a narrow per se bar on covert recording at the bargaining table, not a general clarification of Stericycle and not a broad workplace recording rule. Hawaii unionized workplaces with active bargaining (UNITE HERE Local 5 in hospitality, ILWU Local 142 across multiple sectors, HGEA / AFSCME Local 152 for state and county workers) should know that secretly recording a bargaining session creates an unfair-labor-practice exposure under GC 25-07.
Hawaii is not a right-to-work state, so private-sector NLRA Section 7 analysis applies broadly across the islands.
Specific Workplace Situations
A few subsets come up often:
- Recording your landlord: Yes, when you are a party to the conversation. Tenants can record landlord interactions for documenting verbal agreements about repairs, harassment, or lease disputes.
- Recording your doctor: Yes, you can record medical appointments you attend. HIPAA constrains the provider, not the patient. Inside a closed examination room, a section 711-1111 analysis would arguably apply, but a participant safe harbor under section 803-42 covers your own recording.
- Recording CPS or DCFS workers: Yes. Government employees acting in their official capacity can be recorded under section 803-42 one-party consent and (when in a public place) under section 711-1111(1)(d) Act 164 SLH 2016.
- Recording a co-parent or ex-spouse: Yes during conversations you participate in. Avoid hidden devices in the other parent's home, and avoid using children as covert recorders.
- Dashcams: Legal in Hawaii. Mount the device so it does not obstruct your view, and remember that the audio side follows section 803-42 one-party consent.
For more on the employer recording question, see the cross-state hub.
Deepfakes, AI Voice Clones, and the TAKE IT DOWN Act
Hawaii's deepfake and AI recording rules sit at the intersection of state criminal privacy law and federal NCII enforcement. Three Hawaii authorities and one federal statute do most of the work.
HRS § 711-1110.9(1)(c): The In-Force Deepfake Felony (Act 59 SLH 2021)
Hawaii's principal AI-deepfake recording statute is HRS § 711-1110.9(1)(c), added by Act 59 SLH 2021. It makes it a Class C felony to intentionally create or disclose a synthetic image or video that uses the recognizable physical characteristics of a known person depicted nude or in sexual conduct, with intent to substantially harm the depicted person. The statute survives independently of any election-deepfake litigation and remains in force.
The penalty is a Class C felony under HRS section 706-660 and section 706-640: up to 5 years prison and up to a $10,000 fine.
Act 191 SLH 2024: Election Deepfake Permanently Enjoined
Hawaii enacted Act 191, Session Laws 2024 (originally S.B. 2687) on July 3, 2024, prohibiting reckless distribution of "materially deceptive media" (deepfakes) about candidates during a defined pre-election window. The Act created a tiered criminal scheme (petty misdemeanor for a first violation, misdemeanor for a repeat within five years, Class C felony when distribution was intended to cause violence or bodily harm), civil remedies, and injunctive relief. It was codified in HRS Chapter 11.
On January 30, 2026, U.S. District Judge Shanlyn A.S. Park issued a permanent injunction in Babylon Bee LLC v. Lopez, No. 1:25-cv-00234 (D. Haw. Jan. 30, 2026), holding Act 191 facially unconstitutional under the First Amendment as a content- and speaker-based restriction on political speech, and additionally void for vagueness under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Hawaii Attorney General's office stated it was reviewing the decision; no appellate stay has been reported.
The bottom line: Act 191 remains on the books but is unenforceable as of the date of this article. Anyone planning a 2026 election communication strategy should treat the statute as a dead letter pending appellate developments.
S.B. 1156 (2025/2026): Pending Sexually-Explicit-Deepfake Misdemeanor
S.B. 1156 (33rd Legislature, 2025 Regular Session, carried over to the 2026 Regular Session) would establish a separate misdemeanor offense of "unlawful creation or distribution of a sexually explicit deepfake," with First Amendment exceptions for commentary, criticism, satire, parody, and content carrying a clear visible disclosure.
S.B. 1156 has not been enacted. Coverage of Hawaii's deepfake regime should rely on HRS section 711-1110.9(1)(c) (Act 59 SLH 2021) plus the federal TAKE IT DOWN Act, not on S.B. 1156.
Federal Layer: TAKE IT DOWN Act
The TAKE IT DOWN Act (Tools to Address Known Exploitation by Immobilizing Technological Deepfakes on Websites and Networks Act), Pub. L. No. 119-12, was signed May 19, 2025. It criminalizes the knowing publication of nonconsensual intimate visual depictions, including AI-generated digital forgeries (deepfakes). The criminal prohibition was effective on enactment.
Covered platforms (including major social-media services with U.S. user bases) must establish a notice-and-removal process and remove flagged content (and known identical copies) within 48 hours. The platform compliance obligation under Section 3 takes effect May 19, 2026, within days of this article's publication. The FTC enforces platform compliance.
Hawaii victims of NCII or deepfake intimate-imagery recording can therefore invoke a three-layer remedy: (1) a state criminal complaint under HRS section 711-1110.9 (Class C felony); (2) a federal criminal complaint under the TAKE IT DOWN Act criminal provisions; and (3) a notice-and-takedown demand to covered platforms once Section 3 is in force.
For step three, our DMCA Takedown Notice Generator provides a starting template for platform notices, although TAKE IT DOWN Act NCII notices use a separate procedure.
FCC 24-17 and AI Voice Clones in Robocalls
FCC Declaratory Ruling 24-17 (adopted Feb. 2, 2024; released Feb. 8, 2024) clarifies that AI-generated voices in calls qualify as "artificial or prerecorded voice" under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227, and require prior express consent. Hawaii consumers receiving AI-cloned-voice robocalls have a federal TCPA cause of action under FCC 24-17 and may use Hawaii Office of Consumer Protection enforcement tools tied to the unfair-or-deceptive-trade-practice definitions in HRS Chapter 480.
Note that the FCC's separate "one-to-one consent" rule, FCC 24-24 (formerly codified at 47 C.F.R. section 64.1200(f)(9)), was vacated by the Eleventh Circuit in Insurance Marketing Coalition Ltd. v. FCC, 127 F.4th 303 (11th Cir. 2025); the mandate issued April 30, 2025. The FCC subsequently removed the rule from the CFR. FCC 24-24 is therefore not in force, and Hawaii numbers should not rely on it as an active disclosure regime.
Hawaii Law-Enforcement Body Cameras (HRS Chapter 52D and UIPA)
Body-worn camera regulation in Hawaii sits in a two-layer framework: an operational statute that governs how the cameras are used, and a public-records statute that controls how the footage is released.
Operational Layer: HRS Chapter 52D
HRS Chapter 52D is Hawaii's statewide body-worn-camera framework. Each county police department (Honolulu Police Department, Hawaii County Police Department, Maui Police Department, Kauai Police Department) is responsible for issuing and maintaining cameras and for officer training before use. Chapter 52D imposes several operational rules:
- Pre-deployment training requirement. Officers must complete training before being authorized to use a body-worn camera in the field.
- Prohibited uses. Officers cannot use body-worn cameras to gather intelligence on First Amendment-protected activity, to record activity unrelated to a call for service or law enforcement encounter, or on school grounds except in response to a call for service or during an enforcement encounter.
- Tampering and unauthorized copying ban. Officers may not tamper with body-worn camera data, and unauthorized copying or distribution is prohibited.
- Retention floors. Body-worn camera footage shall be retained for one year for non-criminal cases; for the period of the applicable criminal statute of limitations for criminal cases; and for at least three years if the footage captures events leading up to and including an arrest for a felony-level offense or events that constitute a felony-level offense.
Public-Access Layer: UIPA
Public access to Hawaii body-worn camera footage is governed by the Uniform Information Practices Act (UIPA) at HRS Chapter 92F. Two sections do the heavy lifting:
- HRS § 92F-13, the exceptions to the general rule of disclosure.
- HRS § 92F-14, the significant privacy interests provision.
The Hawaii Office of Information Practices (OIP) interprets the framework to allow agencies to redact portions of body-worn camera recordings that would identify witnesses or capture the interior of homes, while still requiring disclosure when the public interest in disclosure outweighs the privacy interest. OIP Opinion F22-01 addresses Maui Police Department body-camera redactions in a death investigation and is a useful reference for how the balancing test is applied in practice.
Citizen-side recording from outside (cell-phone bystander video of an arrest from a public sidewalk) is not constrained by UIPA. That conduct sits under the police-recording analysis above: HRS section 711-1111(1)(d) Act 164 SLH 2016 carve-out, plus the Fordyce or Askins First Amendment baseline.
Federal Overlay: ECPA, FCC, NLRB, and TAKE IT DOWN Act
Several federal regimes layer on top of Hawaii state law, often in subtle ways.
ECPA: 18 U.S.C. Sections 2510 to 2522
The Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2522, is the federal wiretap statute. Section 2511(2)(d) is a federal one-party-consent floor for non-government interceptions: a person may intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication where the person is a party or where one party has given prior consent, unless the interception is for the purpose of committing a criminal or tortious act. Hawaii's HRS section 803-42(b)(3)(A) matches the federal floor. Hawaii is more protective than ECPA inside private places under section 711-1111 and for intimate imagery under section 711-1110.9.
DOJ Justice Manual § 9-7.302
The DOJ Justice Manual section 9-7.302 sets the federal one-party-consent default for federal investigators in the District of Hawaii. Federal agents who are participating in a conversation, or who have one party's consent, may record without a Title III order.
FCC 24-17 (In Force) and FCC 24-24 (Vacated)
FCC 24-17 (Feb. 8, 2024) is in force and treats AI-generated voices in calls as "artificial or prerecorded" under the TCPA. Prior express consent is required.
FCC 24-24 (the one-to-one consent rule formerly at 47 C.F.R. section 64.1200(f)(9)) was vacated by Insurance Marketing Coalition Ltd. v. FCC, 127 F.4th 303 (11th Cir. 2025), with the mandate issuing April 30, 2025. The rule is no longer in force.
47 C.F.R. § 64.501 (the carrier recording-disclosure beep-tone rule) was removed effective November 20, 2017, when the FCC modernized common-carrier rules. It is not a live federal regulation. Older guides that cite it as a live rule are out of date.
NLRB Stack: Stericycle, GC 25-05, GC 25-07
Stericycle, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 113 (Aug. 2, 2023) is binding Board law as of 2026. Blanket no-recording rules are presumptively unlawful under Section 7 unless the employer proves the rule is narrowly tailored to a legitimate, substantial business interest.
NLRB GC 25-05 (Feb. 14, 2025) rescinds numerous Biden-era General Counsel memoranda. It is a housekeeping narrowing of GC enforcement priorities, not a Board-level reinstatement of older work-rule frameworks. Stericycle still controls.
NLRB GC 25-07 (June 25, 2025) declares surreptitious recording of collective-bargaining sessions a per se violation of NLRA sections 8(a)(5) and 8(b)(3). It is narrow, applying at the bargaining table only.
CFPB Regulation F: Debt Collection
12 C.F.R. § 1006.6, Regulation F under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, imposes call-recording disclosures on debt collectors contacting Hawaii consumers. Hawaii consumers may record their own debt-collection calls under HRS section 803-42 one-party consent and federal 18 U.S.C. section 2511(2)(d).
HIPAA: 45 C.F.R. Part 164
The HIPAA Privacy Rule, 45 C.F.R. Part 164, binds Hawaii covered entities (The Queen's Health Systems, Hawaii Pacific Health, Kaiser Permanente Hawaii, Hawaii Medical Service Association, the Hawaii Department of Health, and others). HIPAA does not preempt Hawaii's general one-party consent default; a patient may record their own medical visit. A covered entity recording the patient needs HIPAA authorization, and the section 711-1111 in-private-place rule still applies inside a closed examination room.
CALEA: 47 U.S.C. Sections 1001 to 1010
The Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, 47 U.S.C. §§ 1001-1010, imposes engineering obligations on Hawaii telecom carriers (Hawaiian Telcom, Spectrum Hawaii, T-Mobile Hawaii, and the Verizon Hawaii service area) to enable lawful court-ordered interception. CALEA does not change the consent standard for individual recording.
TAKE IT DOWN Act: Pub. L. 119-12
The TAKE IT DOWN Act, Pub. L. 119-12, is the federal NCII and deepfake criminal statute. Criminal prohibition was effective on enactment (May 19, 2025). The covered-platform 48-hour notice-and-takedown obligation under Section 3 takes effect May 19, 2026 (within days of this article's publication). The FTC enforces platform compliance.
Wearable Recording Devices in Hawaii
Hawaii's one-party-consent floor under HRS section 803-42 maps cleanly onto modern wearable recording technology. Employees in Hawaii may legally use AI voice recorders like Plaud or similar clip-on devices to record workplace conversations they participate in, without notifying coworkers or supervisors, provided the recording occurs in common areas (open offices, conference rooms, hallways) where there is no privacy expectation. Because only one party needs to consent under section 803-42(b)(3)(A), the person wearing the device satisfies the legal requirement by choosing to record. This makes wearable recorders a practical tool for documenting harassment, preserving verbal instructions, or creating a record of important workplace discussions.
Employer internal policies can still prohibit recording devices in the workplace, and violating a policy may lead to discipline or termination even though the recording itself is legal under state law. The NLRB Stericycle framework, however, limits how broadly an employer may write a no-recording rule; rules that chill Section 7 protected activity are presumptively unlawful. Employers drafting wearable recording device policies need to balance their business interests against these federal protections. And section 711-1111(1)(d) still requires all-party consent if the wearable is recording inside a private place such as an enclosed private office, employee restroom, or lactation room.
Smart glasses (such as Meta Ray-Bans) add a video layer. In Hawaii, video recording in public areas and shared workspaces is generally permitted because there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. Recording video in private areas (bathrooms, locker rooms, changing areas) remains illegal under HRS section 711-1110.9 regardless of consent, with violations classified as a Class C felony. Wearers should also be aware that the constant presence of a visible camera lens can create tension with coworkers, even when the recording is perfectly legal. For the cross-state framework on hidden video, see our video recording without consent guide.
Using Recordings as Evidence in Hawaii
Recordings made legally under Hawaii's one-party-consent law are generally admissible as evidence, subject to standard rules for authentication, hearsay, and probative versus prejudicial value. Courts will ask:
- Authentication. Can you prove the recording is genuine and unaltered? Original device files, metadata, and witness testimony usually answer this.
- Relevance. Does the recording matter to a fact in dispute?
- Hearsay. Statements offered for the truth may need to fall under a hearsay exception under the Hawaii Rules of Evidence.
- Prejudicial versus probative value. A trial court may exclude a recording if its prejudicial effect substantially outweighs its probative value.
In criminal cases, illegally obtained recordings are typically inadmissible against a third party and may also expose the recorder to felony charges. In civil cases, the rules can be more flexible, but illegally obtained evidence may still be excluded and the recorder may face civil liability under HRS section 803-48.
Pending Hawaii Legislation Worth Watching
Two bills are worth monitoring in the 2026 Regular Session.
- S.B. 1156 (2025/2026): sexually-explicit-deepfake misdemeanor. Carried over from 2025; not enacted. Would create a separate misdemeanor offense for knowing creation or distribution of nude or sexual deepfakes without consent, with First Amendment exceptions for commentary, criticism, satire, parody, and content with a clear visible disclosure. Until enacted, Hawaii's in-force deepfake-NCII vehicle is HRS section 711-1110.9(1)(c) under Act 59 SLH 2021.
- Smartphone-microphone surveillance bills. Several recent Hawaii sessions have considered bills to prohibit the sale of data collected through eavesdropping or background microphone access by mobile applications. Status varies from session to session, and none of the proposals changes Hawaii's underlying consent regime.