Hawaii
Hawaii Video Recording Laws: Privacy Rules and Consent Requirements
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. · 7 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content
Hawaii permits video recording in any public space where people lack a reasonable expectation of privacy, with no consent required. Recording inside private places requires consent from everyone entitled to privacy under HRS 711-1111. Audio captured alongside video follows one-party consent under HRS 803-42, so a participant may record without notifying others.
Hawaii does not have a single comprehensive video recording statute. Instead, several laws work together to define when video recording is legal and when it crosses the line. The two most important statutes are HRS 711-1111, which prohibits recording in private places without consent, and HRS 711-1110.9, which addresses voyeurism and intimate image violations.
The general rule is straightforward: you can record video freely in public spaces where people have no reasonable expectation of privacy, but recording in private places requires the consent of everyone entitled to privacy in that location. This guide breaks down the specific rules, penalties, and practical applications of Hawaii's video recording laws.
Video Recording in Public Spaces
The General Rule
Hawaii has no general prohibition on video recording in public spaces. The First Amendment protects your right to record events and people in areas where the public has access. In the Ninth Circuit (which covers Hawaii), Fordyce v. City of Seattle, 55 F.3d 436 (9th Cir. 1995) recognized a First Amendment right to film matters of public interest, and Askins v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 899 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 2018) extended that protection to federal officers. This means you can legally:
- Film on public beaches, streets, parks, and sidewalks throughout the Hawaiian islands
- Record public meetings and government proceedings
- Use a video camera or smartphone to document events in public areas
- Film other people in public spaces where they have no reasonable expectation of privacy
- Record public protests, rallies, and demonstrations
Public Spaces in Hawaii
Hawaii's unique geography and culture create some specific public recording contexts:
- Public beaches: Hawaii's beaches are public under HRS chapter 115's shoreline-access provisions and Hawaii case law on the shoreline boundary; recording in these public areas is generally lawful
- State parks and trails: Recording is permitted in state parks, hiking trails, and natural areas managed by the Department of Land and Natural Resources
- Public sidewalks and roads: Standard First Amendment protections apply
- Government buildings open to the public: You can generally record in public areas of government buildings
Limitations in Public Spaces
Even in public areas, certain types of video recording are restricted:
- You cannot use video recording to facilitate stalking or harassment
- Recording up someone's clothing or down their shirt (upskirting/downblousing) in a public place is illegal under HRS 711-1111(f), a second-degree violation of privacy; the same conduct in a private place falls under the chapter's private-place provisions
- You cannot trespass on private property to obtain a video recording
- Some government facilities may have security restrictions on recording
Video Recording in Private Places
The Private Places Rule: HRS 711-1111
HRS 711-1111 makes it a criminal offense to install or use any device for "observing, recording, amplifying, or broadcasting sounds or events" in any private place without the consent of all persons entitled to privacy in that location.
A "private place" is defined as a location where a person "may reasonably expect to be safe from casual or hostile intrusion or surveillance." This does not include places where the public or a substantial group of the public has access.
What Counts as a Private Place for Video
Under Hawaii law, the following are generally considered private places for video recording purposes:
- Private homes, apartments, and condominiums
- Hotel rooms and vacation rentals
- Private offices with closed doors
- Bathrooms, locker rooms, and changing areas
- Medical examination rooms
- Dressing rooms in retail stores
Penalty for Private Place Recording
Violation of privacy in the second degree under HRS 711-1111 is a misdemeanor, punishable by:
- Up to 1 year in jail
- Fines up to $2,000
- Court-ordered destruction of the recording
Voyeurism Laws: HRS 711-1110.9
Violation of Privacy in the First Degree
HRS 711-1110.9 is Hawaii's primary voyeurism statute. It is a Class C felony carrying up to 5 years in prison and $10,000 in fines. The statute covers:
- Non-consensual intimate image recording: Recording a person in a state of undress or engaging in sexual conduct without consent
- Non-consensual disclosure: Distributing intimate images without the depicted person's consent
- Threatening to disclose: Threatening to distribute intimate images for the purpose of intimidation or coercion (added by Act 114 (2018))
- Deepfake intimate images: Creating, disclosing, or threatening to disclose AI-generated images that realistically depict a person nude or engaging in sexual conduct (added by Act 59 (2021))
Upskirting and downblousing (covert recording of intimate areas under or through clothing without consent) while the victim is in a public place is a separate, lesser offense: violation of privacy in the second degree under HRS 711-1111(f), a misdemeanor under HRS 711-1111(4), not a felony under HRS 711-1110.9. The statute's text expressly conditions paragraph (f) on the victim being in a public place; the same conduct in a private place is charged under the chapter's private-place provisions instead.
Deepfake Intimate Images
Hawaii was among the early states to criminalize deepfake intimate imagery. Act 59 (2021) amended HRS 711-1110.9 to specifically cover:
- AI-generated images swapping a person's face onto intimate imagery
- Tools that digitally remove clothing from photographs
- Any digitally manipulated image that creates a realistic intimate depiction of a real person
Hawaii Act 164: Recording Police on Video
Act 164 (2016) explicitly protects video recording of law enforcement officers in public places. You can film police during arrests, traffic stops, and other law enforcement activities in public. See Hawaii laws on recording police for full details.
Audio Captured With Video
The One-Party Rule for Video With Audio
When your video recording device also captures audio, different rules apply:
- In public spaces: One-party consent applies. If you are part of a conversation, one-party consent is satisfied. Audio of conversations you are not part of may raise concerns.
- In private places: Both video and audio recording require all-party consent under HRS 711-1111.
- Silent video only: If you record video without audio (which is unusual with modern devices), only the video-specific rules apply.
Video Calls and Virtual Meetings
Recording video calls and virtual meetings follows one-party consent under HRS 803-42. As a participant in the call, your knowledge of the recording satisfies the consent requirement. Participants in two-party consent states may have additional rights.
Drone Video Recording
FAA Regulations Apply
All drone operators must comply with FAA regulations:
- Register drones over 0.55 lbs with the FAA
- Follow Part 107 rules for commercial operations
- Observe restricted airspace near airports and other sensitive areas
- Comply with altitude and operational restrictions near the Department of Land and Natural Resources
- Flying drones near airports requires FAA authorization
- Recording video with a drone in a manner that violates HRS 711-1111 (private places) is illegal
- Drone operators must comply with all FAA Part 107 regulations for commercial operations
Privacy Concerns With Drones
Using a drone to record video in someone's private backyard, through windows, or in other private areas may violate HRS 711-1111. The fact that the recording device is airborne does not change the privacy analysis. If the drone captures images of a private place where someone has a reasonable expectation of privacy, criminal liability may follow.
Workplace Video Recording
Hawaii employers can use video surveillance in public-facing areas and common work areas. Recording in bathrooms, locker rooms, and changing areas is prohibited under HRS 711-1111. Employers should notify employees about the presence of surveillance cameras.
Penalty Summary
| Offense | Statute | Classification | Maximum Penalty |
|---|---|---|---|
| Recording in a private place without consent, including upskirting/downblousing under (f) | HRS 711-1111 | Misdemeanor | 1 year jail, $2,000 fine |
| Voyeurism / intimate image recording | 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 |
AI Deepfakes and 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.). On the federal side, the TAKE IT DOWN Act (effective May 19, 2026) creates a 48-hour platform takedown obligation for non-consensual intimate images and AI-generated deepfake intimate content. The TAKE IT DOWN Act complements Hawaii's existing HRS 711-1110.9 protections without displacing them.
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
More Hawaii Laws
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I record video of people in public in Hawaii?
Yes. In public spaces like streets, beaches, and parks, you can record video without permission. In private places as defined by HRS 711-1111, you need the consent of all persons entitled to privacy in that location. Recording intimate images without consent is a Class C felony under HRS 711-1110.9.
Is it legal to record video inside my home or hotel room?
You can record video in areas of your own home where you are present. However, you cannot install cameras in areas where guests or family members have a reasonable expectation of privacy, such as guest bathrooms or bedrooms. In hotel rooms, the guest has privacy rights in the space, and hidden cameras placed by others are illegal.
What is upskirting and is it illegal in Hawaii?
Upskirting is covertly recording under someone's clothing to capture intimate areas without consent. When it happens while the victim is in a public place, it is a misdemeanor violation of privacy in the second degree under HRS 711-1111(f), not the felony voyeurism statute (HRS 711-1110.9); in private places the chapter's private-place provisions govern. Penalties include up to 1 year in jail and a $2,000 fine.
Can I record a video call without telling the other person?
Yes, in Hawaii. As a participant in the call, one-party consent under HRS 803-42 permits you to record without informing the other party. However, if the other participant is in a two-party consent state, that state's law may apply.
Can I use a drone to record video in Hawaii?
For personal use, drone video recording is generally legal on public land, subject to FAA regulations. You must comply with FAA airspace rules, altitude limits, and registration requirements. Using a drone to record in private places where people have a reasonable expectation of privacy may violate HRS 711-1111.
What are the penalties for illegal video recording in Hawaii?
Recording in a private place without consent is a misdemeanor under HRS 711-1111 with up to 1 year in jail and a $2,000 fine. Voyeurism and intimate image violations under HRS 711-1110.9 are Class C felonies carrying up to 5 years in prison and $10,000 in fines.
Updates
Corrected the scope of HRS 711-1111(f): the upskirting provision applies while the victim is in a public place; private-place conduct falls under the chapter's private-place provisions.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
Reattributed upskirting/downblousing from the Class C felony voyeurism statute (HRS 711-1110.9) to the correct misdemeanor privacy statute (HRS 711-1111(f)), fixing the body text, the voyeurism section, the penalty table, and the FAQ.
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.
§ 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.
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.
§ 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
United States Code Title 18
§ 2511Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibitedIn forcecited in 418 of our articles
Except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter any person who— intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any wire, oral, or electronic communication; 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 oral communication when— such device is affixed to, or otherwise transmits a signal through, a wire, cable, or other like connection used in wire communication; or such device transmits communications by radio, or interferes with the transmission of such communication; or such person knows, or has reason to know, that such device or any component thereof has been sent through the mail or transported in interstate or foreign commerce; or such use or endeavor to use (A) takes place on the premises of any business or other commercial establishment the operations of which affect interstate or foreign commerce; or (B) obtains or is for the purpose of obtaining information relating to the operations of any business or other commercial establishment the operations of which affect interstate or foreign…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 2,045 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Griggs-Ryan v. Smith (1990) applied the Section 2511(2)(d) prior-consent exception, treating a tenant repeatedly told that all incoming calls were taped as having impliedly consented. United States v. United States District Court (1972) read the then-current Section 2511(3) as conferring no presidential surveillance power.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Mitchell v. Forsyth (Supreme Court of the United States 1985, 472 U.S. 511)✓The Attorney General authorized a warrantless 1970 national security wiretap that caught the plaintiff's calls; the Court held the since-repealed Section 2511(3) disclaimer left the tap lawful under Title III, and that Mitchell had qualified immunity.
- United States v. United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (Supreme Court of the United States 1972, 407 U.S. 297)✓The Attorney General approved warrantless wiretaps on members of a domestic group accused of bombing a CIA office; the Court read Section 2511(3) as a congressional disclaimer conferring no surveillance power, then held the Fourth Amendment required prior judicial approval.
- Forsyth v. Barr (Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit 1994, 19 F.3d 1527)✓Dallas police used, in an internal affairs probe of an officer, calls private parties allegedly intercepted illegally; assuming that was unlawful, the Fifth Circuit held Section 2517(1) and (2) allowed the disclosure and use, defeating the Section 2511(1)(c) and (d) claims.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Explore the law
This article also draws on these acts and chapters (opening at their first section): Hawaii Revised Statutes, Chapter 92: PUBLIC AGENCY MEETINGS AND RECORDS § 92-1 (Declaration of policy and intent)
Related law for further reading — not part of this article’s citations.
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 Chapter 92 - Public Agency Meetings and Records(capitol.hawaii.gov).gov
- 18 U.S.C. 2511 - Federal Wiretap Act(law.cornell.edu)
- FAA Part 107 - Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems(ecfr.gov).gov
- Hawaii Act 164 (2016) - Right to Record Law Enforcement(capitol.hawaii.gov).gov
- Hawaii Revised Statutes 803-48 - Recovery of Civil Damages Authorized(capitol.hawaii.gov).gov