Relating To Recordings Of Law Enforcement Activities.
SB307 creates a new chapter in the Hawaii Revised Statutes establishing an explicit right for a person who is not under arrest or in police custody to record law enforcement activity. The bill defines “record” broadly to include audio, video, still images, written notes, and observations, and it protects both the recording itself and the devices or property used to make it. It also clarifies that a person who is later arrested or taken into custody does not lose the right to keep recordings made before that point.
The bill further creates a private right of action for unlawful interference with recording police activity. A person may sue if an officer prevents recording, threatens the person for recording, orders the person to stop when legally authorized to continue, seizes or destroys recordings or equipment, or copies recordings without consent or a court order. Available remedies include punitive damages, injunctive and declaratory relief, other court-ordered remedies, and attorney’s fees and expert witness fees. The bill includes a three-year statute of limitations and an affirmative defense where the officer had probable cause to arrest the person for a crime under chapter 710, and it states that the new rights are in addition to existing legal remedies.
In practical terms, SB307 would affect law enforcement agencies, officers, and members of the public by codifying a right that is often associated with First Amendment and civil liberties protections, while also setting limits to avoid physical interference with police duties. It would likely require agencies to train officers on permissible responses to bystanders recording police activity and could expose officers and government entities to civil litigation when recordings are interfered with unlawfully. The bill’s effective date is set for July 1, 3000, which is a common drafting device used in Hawaii bills to indicate a placeholder or delayed effective date rather than an immediate operational change.
The general sentiment reflected in the voting history is strongly favorable. The bill passed the Senate Public Safety, Intergovernmental and Military Affairs Committee unanimously and later passed the Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously, both with amendments. No opposing votes or recorded committee testimony are provided, suggesting broad support for the concept of protecting the public’s ability to record police conduct and to seek civil remedies when that right is violated.
The main point of contention, based on the bill text itself, is the balance between public recording rights and law enforcement authority. The bill preserves police power to act when there is probable cause to arrest for a chapter 710 offense and expressly prohibits physical interference with police activity, indicating concern that recording rights not be used to obstruct enforcement. Another likely issue is the scope of liability, since the bill authorizes punitive damages and fee awards, which could be viewed as significant exposure for officers and agencies if enforcement boundaries are not clear.
SB307 would add a new chapter to the Hawaii Revised Statutes recognizing a statutory right to record law enforcement activity and creating a civil cause of action for interference with that right. It would affect law enforcement officers, agencies, and the public by defining protected recording activity, preserving possession of recordings and recording devices, and authorizing damages, injunctions, and attorney’s fees for violations. The bill also preserves existing rights and remedies, so it would supplement rather than replace other constitutional, statutory, or common-law protections.
The available voting history indicates strong bipartisan or at least broad committee support, with unanimous passage in both the Senate Public Safety, Intergovernmental and Military Affairs Committee and the Senate Judiciary Committee, each with amendments. No committee opposition or negative votes are shown, and there are no transcripts indicating controversy, so the overall sentiment appears favorable toward codifying the right to record police activity and providing enforcement mechanisms.
The principal tension in SB307 is between protecting civilian recording of police conduct and preserving law enforcement’s ability to perform duties without interference. Supporters are likely focused on transparency, accountability, and civil liberties, while the bill’s built-in limits reflect concerns from law enforcement about obstruction, officer safety, and evidentiary handling. The affirmative defense for probable-cause arrests and the express prohibition on physical interference suggest the bill was drafted to address those concerns while still creating meaningful remedies for unlawful interference.