Is it legal to record phone calls in Hawaii?
Yes, generally. Hawaii is a one-party consent state: you may record a phone call you take part in without telling the other person, because your own consent satisfies the rule. Recording calls you are not part of is illegal. When the other person may be in an all-party consent state like California or Florida, disclose the recording anyway.
What Hawaii law says
Hawaii follows one-party consent for phone calls, consistent with the federal Wiretap Act: as long as one participant — and you count — consents, the recording is lawful. The rule covers conversations you participate in; intercepting other people’s calls remains a crime. Bear in mind the rule protects you within Hawaii — interstate calls can implicate stricter states’ laws, which is why professionals default to disclosure.
Hawaii is a one-party consent state for phone calls and most oral communications: you may record if you are a party to the conversation or have the prior consent of at least one participant. The statute does not reach conversations where no participant has a reasonable expectation of privacy. Separately, Hawaii's privacy-in-private-places law (§ 711-1111) requires all-party consent before installing or using a device to capture sounds from a private place that would not ordinarily be audible outside it — so recording in bathrooms, bedrooms, or similar spaces follows a stricter rule than ordinary phone calls.
"It shall not be unlawful under this part for a person to intercept a wire or oral communication where such person is a party to the communication or where one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception unless such 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." — Haw. Rev. Stat. § 803-42(b)(3)(A)
Federal law under 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d) permits one-party consent recording and sets the national floor. Hawaii's § 803-42(b)(3)(A) tracks that federal standard for most phone and oral communications, so a recording lawful under federal one-party principles is generally lawful under Hawaii's wiretap act too. Federal law does not preempt Hawaii's stricter private-place privacy rules in § 711-1111, which can require all-party consent even when the federal Wiretap Act would allow one-party recording.
For wire, telephone, and electronic communications, Hawaii follows classic one-party consent under § 803-42(b)(3)(A): your own participation counts, and no announcement or written permission is required. The Hawaii Supreme Court in State v. Okubo held that a participant who consents to recording — including a police officer wearing a body wire — does not violate the wiretap act, and the person speaking with that participant has no reasonable expectation that the conversation will not be recorded. Oral communications are protected only when a speaker has a reasonable expectation of privacy; loud conversations in public fall outside the act. The critical wrinkle is Hawaii's separate privacy statute: § 711-1111 makes it a crime to install or use a recording device in a "private place" without the consent of everyone entitled to privacy there. A private place is anywhere a person may reasonably expect to be safe from casual or hostile intrusion — hotel rooms, homes, dressing rooms, and similar spaces. That means you can record your own phone call with someone without telling them, but secretly bugging a bedroom or bathroom requires everyone's consent even if you are otherwise a participant. Hawaii also expressly permits filming police officers performing official duties when they have no reasonable expectation of privacy, so long as the recording does not interfere with safety or investigations.
| Consent rule for phone calls | One-party consent |
| Recording calls you're part of | Allowed — your own consent is sufficient. |
| Calls with people in other states | The stricter state's rule may apply — when in doubt, disclose. |
What breaking the law costs in Hawaii
Illegal interception, recording, or disclosure under the wiretap act is a class C felony — up to five years in prison and a fine up to $10,000. Violating the private-place privacy statute is ordinarily a misdemeanor (up to one year and $2,000), escalating to a class C felony when the recording involves a person in a stage of undress or sexual activity.
Yes — § 803-48 lets anyone whose communication was illegally intercepted sue for the greater of actual damages, $10,000, or any profits the violator made, plus punitive damages, attorney fees, and costs. Illegally obtained recordings may also be ordered destroyed under the privacy statutes.
Exceptions worth knowing
- One-party consent for wire and oral communications when the recorder is a party or has one participant's prior consent (§ 803-42(b)(3)(A))
- Communications with no reasonable expectation of privacy — public settings where interception is not concealed
- Filming or audio recording police officers performing official duties when they have no reasonable expectation of privacy and the recording does not interfere with safety or investigations (§ 711-1111(1)(d))
- Law enforcement interception under judicial authorization or within statutory emergency procedures
How Hawaii courts have ruled
Statutes set the rule; cases show how it plays out when a recording ends up in front of a judge. These are real, decided cases under Hawaii law.
What happened: Police officers met with Okubo and Yamamoto at a public restaurant while wearing concealed recording and transmitting devices; the defendants argued the warrantless audio recordings violated Hawaii's wiretap act and the state constitution.
The ruling: The Supreme Court affirmed that participant monitoring with one party's consent is lawful under § 803-42(b)(3) and does not require a warrant, because the defendants had no reasonable expectation their conversations with consenting officers would not be recorded.
What happened: Russo pulled onto a road shoulder during a traffic stop and began filming police officers on his cellphone; he was charged with failing to comply with a lawful order.
The ruling: The court held there was insufficient probable cause for the charge because Russo complied with officers' instructions, and recognized that filming government officials performing duties in public is protected by the First Amendment and Hawaii's constitution.
What happened: Law enforcement recorded face-to-face conversations with a defendant using a participant who consented to the monitoring, and the defendant moved to suppress the recordings.
The ruling: The court held that warrantless participant monitoring with one party's consent does not violate Article I, § 7 of the Hawaii Constitution when the speaker has no protected privacy expectation in the conversation.
What happened: The state prosecuted a defendant for using electronic equipment to capture sounds from a private place without the consent of all persons entitled to privacy there.
The ruling: The court held that § 803-42's one-party consent rule does not authorize bugging a private place without the consent of everyone entitled to privacy in that space.
What happened: Police recorded conversations using a transmitting device worn by a participant rather than a device installed in a fixed location.
The ruling: The court held that wearing a recording device does not constitute unlawful "installation" in a private place under the privacy statutes when one party to the communication consents.
Personal calls vs. business calls in Hawaii
Recording personal calls
If you are on a phone call in Hawaii, you can record it without telling the other person — your own consent satisfies § 803-42. Parents, tenants, and people documenting harassment regularly use participant recordings in custody and housing disputes. What you cannot do is treat every setting like a phone call: secretly recording inside a private bedroom, bathroom, or hotel room without everyone's consent can violate § 711-1111 even when you are present. Recording police during a traffic stop or other public duty is protected, but interfering with officers still carries separate criminal exposure. If someone illegally records you, § 803-48 civil damages start at $10,000 per violation.
Recording business calls
Hawaii businesses can record customer calls with only the employee's consent as a party, but most companies still announce recording as a best practice and to satisfy stricter states on interstate lines. Call centers recording into California, Florida, or other all-party states need all-party consent regardless of Hawaii law. Employers monitoring employee calls on company lines are generally fine when a consenting participant is on the recording, but planting devices in break rooms, restrooms, or other private employee spaces crosses into § 711-1111 territory. Quality-assurance recording should be disclosed in customer-facing scripts whenever calls may leave Hawaii.
Calls that cross state lines
Hawaii courts have not produced a leading choice-of-law decision like California's Kearney rule, but Hawaii residents are protected by the state's wiretap and privacy statutes regardless of where the other caller sits. A business in a one-party state that records a Hawaii resident without consent risks Hawaii felony prosecution and civil liability under § 803-48. When any party may be in an all-party state, follow the strictest rule and disclose.
The safe way to record in Hawaii
Whatever the local rule, one habit covers every situation: say the call is being recorded at the start. Consent is then on the recording itself, and cross-border calls stop being a legal puzzle. Callmark can play "This call may be recorded" automatically on your calls, so the disclosure never depends on your memory.
For the full national picture — every all-party state, cross-border rules, and consent mechanics — see our state-by-state consent guide.
Sources and further reading
Statutes, court opinions, and reference guides cited on this page. Laws change — verify current text before relying on it for anything consequential.
- Haw. Rev. Stat. § 803-42 (official text, Hawaii Legislature)
- Haw. Rev. Stat. § 711-1111 — privacy in private places (official text)
- Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press — Hawaii recording guide
- State v. Russo, 407 P.3d 137 (2017) — Justia
- State v. Okubo, 67 Haw. 197, 682 P.2d 79 (1984) — statute annotations
Common questions
Yes. As a participant in the call, your consent satisfies Hawaii’s one-party rule. Disclosure is still wise whenever the other party might be in an all-party consent state.
Courts have applied different states' laws to interstate calls, and you often can't verify where a mobile number is. The practical rule: assume the strictest state applies and disclose the recording.
In most states, continuing a call after a clear "this call may be recorded" announcement is treated as implied consent — the same mechanism customer-service lines rely on.
Yes. Hawaii is a one-party consent state under § 803-42(b)(3)(A). Your own participation is sufficient consent, and State v. Okubo confirms that a consenting participant may record without notifying the other side.
Not generally — ordinary in-person conversations follow the same one-party wiretap rule if there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. But § 711-1111 imposes an all-party consent requirement for recording sounds in a private place (home, hotel room, dressing room, etc.) using a device that captures what would not ordinarily be heard outside.
Yes, when officers are performing official duties and have no reasonable expectation of privacy. State v. Russo recognized a constitutional right to film government officials in public, and § 711-1111(1)(d) expressly permits recording police under those circumstances if you do not interfere with safety or investigations.
Wiretap violations are class C felonies — up to five years and $10,000. Private-place privacy violations are usually misdemeanors but can be felonies when nudity or sexual activity is involved. Civil plaintiffs can recover at least $10,000 under § 803-48.
A lawfully made one-party recording is generally admissible if authenticated and relevant. Recordings made in violation of § 803-42 or § 711-1111 expose the recorder to criminal and civil liability and may be suppressed or excluded depending on how they were obtained.
Record responsibly in Hawaii, automatically.
Built-in disclosure · automatic transcripts and summaries · 200 minutes included
Get Callmark