RELATING TO RECORDINGS OF LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES.
Summary
HB595 would create a new chapter in the Hawaii Revised Statutes establishing an express 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 the person’s ability to keep custody and control of the recording and the devices or property used to make it. It also provides that being arrested or taken into custody does not, by itself, eliminate the right to retain recordings made before that point or to have recording equipment returned.
The bill further creates a private right of action for unlawful interference with recording police activity. A person could sue if an officer prevents recording, threatens the person for recording, orders the person to stop when legally authorized to record, seizes or searches the person or their equipment because of the recording, destroys or copies recordings without consent or court approval, or otherwise interferes in specified ways. Available remedies include damages, punitive damages, injunctive and declaratory relief, and attorneys’ and expert witness fees, with a three-year limitations period. The bill states that these rights are cumulative and do not replace other legal remedies.
Impact
If enacted, HB595 would add a new statutory chapter to Hawaii law protecting the public’s ability to record police and other law enforcement activities and would create enforceable civil remedies against officers or agencies that interfere with that right. It would affect law enforcement practices, evidence handling, and civil liability exposure by expressly limiting interference with recordings and by authorizing lawsuits for damages and equitable relief. The bill also includes a probable-cause affirmative defense tied to chapter 710 offenses, and it preserves existing rights and remedies under other laws.
Sentiment
The available legislative history suggests generally favorable treatment of the bill at this stage. The measure was reported out and referred onward in amended form, with no votes in opposition and no votes in favor with reservations, indicating no recorded committee resistance in the action provided. There is no transcript material showing debate or opposition, so the overall sentiment appears supportive or at least noncontroversial in the recorded action.
Contention
The main substantive issue likely to draw attention is the scope of the right to record and the limits on police authority to stop, seize, search, or arrest someone who is recording. The bill also raises potential concerns about civil liability, including punitive damages and fee shifting, which could be viewed as increasing exposure for officers and agencies. Another point of possible contention is the probable-cause defense, which may be seen as an important safeguard for law enforcement but also as a limitation on the new right. No specific objections are reflected in the provided vote or transcript record.