Hawaii
Hawaii Security Camera Laws: Residential and Business Surveillance Rules
Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited August 15, 2026). · Reviewed by the RecordingLaw editorial team. · Law checked current as of August 15, 2026. · 5 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content
Hawaii allows security cameras on residential and business property in areas where people lack a reasonable expectation of privacy. Audio recording follows one-party consent under HRS 803-42. Cameras are barred from bathrooms, bedrooms, and other private spaces under HRS 711-1111 regardless of who installs them.
Hawaii does not have a standalone security camera statute. Instead, the legality of security cameras is governed by the intersection of several laws, primarily HRS 711-1111 (violation of privacy in the second degree), HRS 711-1110.9 (violation of privacy in the first degree), and HRS 803-42 (the wiretapping statute that governs audio recording).
The general rule is that security cameras are legal in areas where people do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Cameras in private places -- including bathrooms, bedrooms, locker rooms, and rental units -- are prohibited regardless of who installs them.
Residential Security Cameras
Homeowner Rights
Hawaii homeowners can install security cameras on their own property in locations where they have a right to be present and where the subjects do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Permitted locations include:
- Front doors, entryways, and porches
- Driveways and parking areas
- Backyards (your own yard, not aimed at neighbors)
- Fences and perimeter areas
- Garages and storage areas
Neighbors' Privacy Rights
Cameras on your own property must not capture areas where neighbors have privacy expectations. Cameras pointed at neighbors' private areas violate HRS 711-1111. Incidental capture of a neighbor's yard or driveway from your property is generally acceptable, but deliberately pointing a camera into their private spaces is not.
Do not record in neighbors' bedrooms, bathrooms, or enclosed private areas. This is both a misdemeanor under HRS 711-1111 and potentially a felony under HRS 711-1110.9 if intimate images are captured.
Doorbell Cameras
Doorbell cameras like Ring and Nest are legal in Hawaii. They can capture:
- Your own property and public areas like sidewalks
- Audio recording through doorbell cameras follows one-party consent rules for conversations you participate in
- If the camera captures audio of passersby or neighbors, this may raise concerns under HRS 803-42
Nanny Cameras and Indoor Monitoring
Using indoor cameras to monitor childcare providers (nanny cameras) is legal in Hawaii in common areas of your home. However:
- Cameras in bathrooms or areas where the caregiver changes clothes are prohibited
- If the camera records audio, one-party consent applies; you must be a party to conversations captured
- Disclosing the existence of cameras to caregivers is a best practice
Business Security Cameras
Where Businesses Can Place Cameras
Hawaii businesses have broad rights to install security cameras in areas accessible to the public or where employees work without a privacy expectation:
- Customer-facing sales floors and service areas
- Entrances and exits
- Parking lots and loading docks
- Common hallways and corridors
- Warehouses and production floors
- Common break rooms that are open and accessible
Where Businesses Cannot Place Cameras
Cameras are prohibited in private places under HRS 711-1111:
- Restrooms and bathrooms
- Locker rooms and changing areas
- Shower facilities
- Lactation rooms and nursing spaces
- Dressing rooms in retail stores
- Private offices where employees have a reasonable expectation of privacy
Employee Notification
While Hawaii does not have a specific statute requiring employers to notify employees of workplace cameras, best practices include visible signage where cameras are installed, disclosure in employment agreements, and workplace policy notices.
Penalty Summary
| Offense | Statute | Classification | Maximum Penalty |
|---|---|---|---|
| Camera in a private place without consent | HRS 711-1111 | Misdemeanor | 1 year jail, $2,000 fine |
| Camera capturing intimate images | HRS 711-1110.9 | Class C Felony | 5 years prison, $10,000 fine |
| Illegal audio interception | HRS 803-42 | Class C Felony | 5 years prison, $10,000 fine |
Audio Recording Through Security Cameras
The Audio Question
Many modern security cameras include audio recording capability. This adds an additional layer of legal complexity in Hawaii:
In public areas and common spaces, audio recording follows the one-party consent rule under HRS 803-42, as confirmed by the Hawaii Supreme Court in State v. Okubo, 67 Haw. 197, 682 P.2d 79 (1984). If you are a participant in a conversation captured by your security camera, one-party consent is satisfied. However, audio that captures conversations of passersby or visitors that you are not part of may raise concerns under HRS 803-42.
In private places, audio recording requires the consent of all persons entitled to privacy under HRS 711-1111.
Best Practice: Disable Audio on Outdoor Cameras
To avoid potential legal issues, many Hawaii security professionals recommend disabling audio recording on outdoor security cameras that capture conversations of people passing by. Video-only recording eliminates audio consent complications in public areas.
Vacation Rental Security Cameras
What Is Permitted
Vacation rental hosts can install security cameras at:
- Exterior entry points (front door, gate)
- Driveway and parking areas
- Exterior common areas of the property
- Pool areas (video only, not in changing areas)
All exterior cameras should be disclosed in the rental listing. Failure to disclose cameras can result in:
- Platform violations and delisting
- Criminal charges under HRS 711-1111 for hidden cameras in private spaces
- Civil liability for invasion of privacy
Legal Consequences for Vacation Rental Camera Violations
Placing hidden cameras inside a vacation rental in Hawaii can result in:
- Misdemeanor charges under HRS 711-1111 (up to 1 year jail, $2,000 fine)
- Felony charges under HRS 711-1110.9 if intimate images are captured (up to 5 years prison, $10,000 fine)
- Civil lawsuits from guests
- Revocation of vacation rental permits by county authorities
Federal Developments
Hawaii's election deepfake law, Act 191 SLH 2024, was permanently enjoined as facially unconstitutional in Babylon Bee LLC v. Lopez, No. 1:25-cv-00234 (D. Haw. Jan. 30, 2026) (Park, J.). The federal TAKE IT DOWN Act (effective May 19, 2026) requires platforms to remove non-consensual intimate images on notice. These developments do not change the core rules for security camera placement but illustrate the broader framework for how recorded footage may be legally shared or distributed.
More Hawaii Recording Laws
Audio Recording | Video Recording | Voyeurism and Hidden Cameras | Workplace Recording | Recording Police | Phone Call Recording | Security Cameras | Recording in Public | Landlord-Tenant Recording | Dashcam Laws | School Recording | Medical Recording
More Hawaii Recording Topics
See Also
- Hawaii Surveillance Camera Laws covers home, HOA, neighbor, workplace, and landlord camera rules in Hawaii.
More Hawaii Laws
Frequently Asked Questions
Are security cameras legal in Hawaii?
Yes. Security cameras are legal in Hawaii in areas where people do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Cameras are prohibited in private places like bathrooms, locker rooms, and bedrooms. Homeowners can install cameras on their own property, and businesses can install cameras in customer-facing and employee work areas (except private areas).
Can my neighbor point a security camera at my property?
It depends. A camera aimed at public areas like the street or a neighbor's driveway from their own property is generally permissible. A camera deliberately aimed at your bedroom windows, backyard privacy areas, or other private spaces could violate HRS 711-1111. Incidental capture of your yard while monitoring their own property is less likely to be a violation.
Can my landlord install cameras inside my apartment in Hawaii?
No. A rental unit is a private place under HRS 711-1111, and a landlord cannot install cameras inside the unit. Landlords can install cameras in common areas of the building such as lobbies, hallways, and parking areas. Hidden cameras inside a rental unit can result in misdemeanor or felony charges.
Does my security camera need to have audio recording disabled?
Not legally required, but recommended. Audio recording in public areas where you are not a party to conversations may raise concerns under HRS 803-42. Disabling audio on outdoor cameras pointed at public areas is a best practice to avoid potential liability.
Are hidden cameras legal in Hawaii vacation rentals?
No. Hidden cameras inside a vacation rental unit are illegal under HRS 711-1111. Exterior cameras at entry points are generally permissible but should be disclosed in the rental listing. Interior cameras of any kind, whether hidden or disclosed, raise serious privacy concerns and may violate platform policies.
Updates
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
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 19 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 Recording Laws (2026): Hybrid Consent State Rules, Hawaii Smart Glasses Recording Laws (2026), Hawaii Audio Recording Laws: One-Party Consent Rules and Penalties
§ 711-1110.9Violation of privacy in the first degreeIn forcecited in 16 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 706: DISPOSITION OF CONVICTED DEFENDANTS
§ 706-660Sentence of imprisonment for class B and C felonies; ordinary terms; discretionary termsIn forcecited in 5 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 Voyeurism Laws: Hidden Camera Penalties and Privacy Protections
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 20 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 2026-08-28 · 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 Laws on Recording Police: Your Rights Under Act 164, Hawaii Video Recording Laws: Privacy Rules and Consent Requirements, Hawaii Medical Recording Laws: Patient Rights, HIPAA, and Consent Rules (2026)
§ 803-48Recovery of civil damages authorizedIn forcecited in 13 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 AI Meeting Recording Laws (2026), Hawaii Surveillance Camera Laws: Complete 2026 Guide, Hawaii Dashcam Laws: Recording Rules, Audio Consent, and Legal Limits (2026)
Search our full record of US law — 2.1 million sections, every state + federal →
Sources and References
- Hawaii Revised Statutes 711-1111 - Violation of Privacy in the Second Degree(capitol.hawaii.gov).gov
- Hawaii Revised Statutes 711-1110.9 - Violation of Privacy in the First Degree(capitol.hawaii.gov).gov
- Hawaii Revised Statutes 803-42 - Interception of Communications(capitol.hawaii.gov).gov
- Hawaii Revised Statutes 706-660 - Sentencing(capitol.hawaii.gov).gov
- Hawaii Revised Statutes 803-48 - Recovery of Civil Damages(capitol.hawaii.gov).gov