The Investigators, LLC Hawaii (A Hawaii Private Investigation Agency)

4211 Waialae Ave.
Honolulu, HI 96816
ph: 808-218-1025
george@theinvestigatorsllc.com

Surveillance

The objective of surveillance for the Hawaii Private Investigator, Detective or a Hawaii Private Investigation Agency is to obtain information about people, their associates, and their activities through covert observations.

In Hawaii Surveillance Investigation can be constructed to:

Observe physical activities in progress
Observe daily routine or activities
Identify associates
Find or locate individuals
Protect Witnesses
Verify Statements
Prevent a crime from being committed
Apprehend a criminal in the act
Recover stolen property

Types of Surveillance:

Stationary (fixed, plant, stakeout)
Moving (tight or close, loose, rough)

Close surveillance: The primary objective is the continuous observation of the target without regard to whether the target knows he is under surveillance. Primarily for Protection or TRO Enforcement.

Rough surveillance: This is conducted in such a manner as to ensure that the target does not become aware of the surveillance activity.

3. Foot or Vehicle

HRS: SURVEILLANCE LAWS IN HAWAII

Hawaii has two types of laws applying to secret recording: an eavesdropping law and a privacy statute. One-party consent is generally acceptable, but the privacy law includes provisions against the installation of surveillance equipment. That situation has led to a strange split in the law: It would be legal for an investigator to wear a wire to record her own conversation, but she cannot "plant" a bug or a video camera in the room to record the same conversation.

Eavesdropping
Hawaii's eavesdropping statute makes it illegal to intentionally intercept, attempt to intercept or have someone else intercept any wire, electronic or oral communication through the use of a device. It is also illegal to use, disclose or attempt to use or disclose the contents (any information concerning the substance, purport or meaning) of a communication if one knows or has reason to know that the communication was intercepted illegally.
The statute requires a reasonable expectation of privacy for oral communications. To be protected, an oral communication must be uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that the communication is not subject to interception, under circumstances that justify that expectation.

Consent
It is legal for a person to intercept communication when the person is a party to the communication or when one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to the interception, unless the communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing a criminal or tortious (wrongful) act. The consent of one of the parties is not enough if a recording or amplifying device is installed in a private place; the consent of the people entitled to privacy there must be obtained. (See the privacy statute, below.)

What is covered
     The state statute specifically includes cellular telephone communications, but the radio portions of cordless telephone communications are not protected.
     It is legal to intercept a radio communication that is transmitted by any governmental, law enforcement, civil defense, private land mobile, or public safety communications system, including police and fire department systems, that is "readily accessible" to the general public. Readily accessible means, among other things, that the communication is not scrambled or encrypted. Interception of amateur, citizens band and general mobile radio services communications is also legal.
     It is illegal in Hawaii to possess a device primarily useful for surreptitious interception of wire, oral or electronic communications. Illegal devices can be seized and forfeited to the state.

Criminal and civil penalties
Violation of any of the above laws is a class C felony, punishable by up to five years in prison and a fine of $10,000.
Someone whose communication is illegally intercepted, disclosed or used can sue for injunctive relief or damages. Damages may be assessed in the amount of either actual damages plus any profits made by the violator, or statutory damages calculated at $100 for each day of violation or $10,000, whichever is higher. Punitive damages, reasonable attorney's fees and court costs are also available.

Privacy
Hawaii's privacy statute outlaws the following:

trespassing on property for the purpose of eavesdropping or conducting surveillance in a private place;
installing or using equipment in a private place for observing, photographing, recording, amplifying or broadcasting sounds or events "without the consent of the person or persons entitled to privacy therein";
installing or using--without consent--the same type of equipment outside a private place to hear or record sounds from inside that would not normally be audible outside;
intercepting a message transmitted by telephone or other means of private communication, except that listening on a telephone party line or an extension is not illegal; and
divulging the contents of any illegally obtained private communication if the divulger knows or has reason to know that it was unlawfully intercepted.

Violation of the privacy statute is a misdemeanor.
     The differences in the eavesdropping and privacy statutes are made clear in two similar court cases involving investigations of doctors prescribing drugs illegally.
     In the first case, police officers rented two adjoining hotel rooms and installed video cameras. They then had an informant summon the doctor to one of the rooms and ask for prescription drugs. The officers assumed the surveillance was legal because the informant had consented. The state supreme court, however, ruled it was illegal because it involved "installing" the equipment. The court found the hotel room to be a "private place" and said that when the doctor entered it, he became as entitled to his privacy as the informant, so the officers should not have recorded without his consent. Interestingly, the court also said that had the police had the informant wear a wire rather than bug the room, the recording would have been legal.
     In the second case, decided a year later, an undercover police officer wore a wire while posing as a patient in a doctor's office. That method was approved by the court because the officer consented to the recording and because no installation of a bug was involved. The court held that because the recording was consensual, it did not matter that it happened in a place that might be considered private.

Sources
Hawaii Revised Statutes Sections 7111-111, 803-41 to 803-43, 803-47.5 to 803-48 (1997); State v. Lo, 675 P.2d 754 (Haw. 1983); State v. Lee, 686 P.2d 816 (Haw. 1984).