Recording Law for Phone & Video Calls in Hawaii

Hawaii is a one-party consent state for phone and video calls. Under Hawaii Revised Statutes § 803-42(b)(3)(A), you can legally record a phone call, Zoom, FaceTime, Teams, or any other call if you are one of the people in the conversation. The law covers "wire, oral, or electronic communication," which includes both audio and video calls made over the internet or phone lines. The key rule is simple: if you are part of the call, you don’t need anyone else’s permission to record it. The statute says it’s not unlawful to intercept such a communication "when the person is a party to the communication or when one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent," unless the communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act. Hawaii Revised Statutes § 803-42(b)(4) also allows a person acting under color of law to record a communication they are part of under the same one-party consent rule.

The law covers any conversation you are actively part of, whether it’s a phone call, a video meeting, or a group chat with audio. Hawaii Revised Statutes § 803-41 defines "oral communication" as any utterance a person makes with an expectation that it won’t be intercepted, and this expectation must be reasonable given the circumstances, but the term does not include any electronic communication. For example, a loud conversation shouted in a public park would not meet this standard, but a private phone call or a video meeting with the camera on would. The law also protects "electronic communication," which includes calls made over the internet like Zoom or FaceTime. The one-party consent rule applies as long as you are part of the conversation, regardless of where the call takes place. Hawaii’s wiretap statute, § 803-42, is triggered only if the utterance qualifies as an "oral communication" under § 803-41; if it does not (e.g., shouted in public with no expectation of confidentiality), the statute’s one-party consent requirement never applies at all. The statute’s civil remedy at § 803-48 allows a private right of action for actual damages, profits made from the violation, or statutory damages of the greater of $100 per day or $10,000, plus equitable relief and reasonable attorneys’ fees.

Hawaii law and courts protect your right to record on-duty police officers performing their duties in public. Hawaii Revised Statutes § 711-1111(1)(d) says the state’s privacy law does not prohibit recording a law enforcement officer while they are on duty in a public place, as long as you don’t interfere with their work. The Hawaii Supreme Court has also ruled that filming government officials, including police, is protected by the First Amendment and the Hawaii Constitution, as long as you don’t interfere with their duties. In 138 Hawai'i 401, 407 P.3d 137 (Haw. 2017), the court held that filming government officials, including police officers performing official duties in a public place, is protected by the First Amendment and article I, section 4 of the Hawai'i Constitution, subject to narrowly-tailored, clearly-communicated restrictions genuinely tied to interference with duties. The Ninth Circuit’s Askins v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Security, 899 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 2018) supports this right in the federal context but is not squarely a police-duties case. This means you can record police interactions in public spaces like streets, parks, or storefronts without breaking the law. The statute specifically states: "This prohibition shall not prohibit a person from making a video or audio recording or taking a photograph of a law enforcement officer while the officer is in the performance of the officer's duties in a public place or under circumstances in which the officer has no reasonable expectation of privacy and the person is not interfering with the officer's ability to maintain safety and control."

Hawaii has two separate rules for video and audio recording. Under Hawaii Revised Statutes § 803-42, recording the audio of a conversation you’re part of is allowed with one-party consent. But if you’re recording silent video only (no audio), that falls outside the wiretap statute’s reach because it does not involve an "oral communication" as defined in Hawaii Revised Statutes § 803-41. A "private place" is defined in Hawaii Revised Statutes § 711-1100 as a place where someone reasonably expects to be safe from casual or hostile intrusion, but it does not include places open to the public or a substantial group of people. So recording silent video in a public park or on a sidewalk is not restricted by the wiretap law. However, installing or using a device to record sounds or events in a private place without consent is a crime under Hawaii Revised Statutes § 711-1111. For example, recording a conversation in someone’s home without their permission would violate this law. The penalty for violating § 711-1111 is a misdemeanor, while § 803-42 violations are a Class C felony, and § 803-48 provides a private civil cause of action with damages and attorneys’ fees.

Even though Hawaii’s one-party consent rule is broad, there are limits. The law does not allow recording if you’re doing it to commit a crime or a tort, such as extortion or harassment. Hawaii Revised Statutes § 803-42 says the one-party consent exception does not apply if the communication is intercepted "for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act." Also, if you’re recording in a private space like a home or office, you could run into trouble under Hawaii Revised Statutes § 711-1111 if the people there have a reasonable expectation of privacy and you don’t have their consent. The statute’s definition of "private place" excludes places to which the public or a substantial group has access, so a backyard open to neighbors or a private office within a public building may or may not qualify depending on the facts. The wiretap statute’s one-party consent rule applies only if the utterance qualifies as an "oral communication" under § 803-41, which requires both a subjective expectation of non-interception and objective circumstances justifying that expectation; if those elements are missing, the statute’s consent rule never triggers regardless of location.

Recording without consent can trigger both criminal and civil consequences in Hawaii. Under Hawaii Revised Statutes § 803-42, unlawful interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications is a Class C felony. Separately, Hawaii Revised Statutes § 711-1111 makes it a misdemeanor to install or use a device to record sounds or events in a private place without consent. If you violate the wiretap statute, Hawaii Revised Statutes § 803-48 provides a private right of action for actual damages, profits made from the violation, or statutory damages of the greater of $100 per day or $10,000, plus equitable relief and reasonable attorneys’ fees. There is also a good-faith reliance on a court order defense to a § 803-48 claim. These penalties apply regardless of whether the recording was made in person, over the phone, or via an electronic communication platform.

Imagine you’re a remote employee in Hawaii joining a Zoom meeting with your boss and two coworkers. You decide to record the call for note-taking purposes. Because you’re part of the conversation, Hawaii’s one-party consent law allows you to record without telling anyone else. The call is an "electronic communication" under Hawaii Revised Statutes § 803-42, and you’re a party to it, so the recording is legal. If the meeting were held in person in a private office, the same rule applies as long as you’re part of the discussion. However, if the meeting were in a private home where the host had a reasonable expectation of privacy and you weren’t part of the conversation, recording could violate Hawaii Revised Statutes § 711-1111. If you recorded the home meeting without consent, you could face criminal charges under § 711-1111 and a civil lawsuit under § 803-48.

Hawaii uses two independent legal gates to determine when recording is allowed. The first gate is the "oral communication" definition in Hawaii Revised Statutes § 803-41, which requires that a speaker exhibit an expectation that the utterance is not subject to interception and that the circumstances objectively justify that expectation. Only if this gate is cleared does the one-party consent rule in § 803-42(b)(3)(A) apply, allowing you to record as long as you are a party to the conversation. The second gate is the "private place" definition in Hawaii Revised Statutes § 711-1100, which restricts recording sounds or events in places where people reasonably expect privacy, regardless of whether you are part of the conversation. These gates operate separately: clearing the § 803-41 "oral communication" gate triggers the one-party consent rule for audio recording, while the § 711-1100 "private place" gate independently restricts recording in certain locations even if the audio itself is not covered by the wiretap statute. No reported Hawaii appellate decision squarely defines a broader "reasonable expectation of privacy" recording test outside these statutes, so this analysis relies on the statutory text itself. The official case notes to § 803-42 cite two cases construing related points — 66 H. 653, 675 P.2d 754 (1983) and 67 H. 197, 682 P.2d 79 (1984) — though full opinion text/party names were not independently retrieved.