Hawaii Revised Statutes 803-47.8 Delay of Notification.

Note

Heading reenacted by L 2006, c 200, pt of §4.

Law Journals and Reviews

Hawaii's New Wiretap Law. 14 HBJ, no. 3, at 83 (1978).

The Lum Court and the First Amendment. 14 UH L. Rev. 395 (1992).

Case Notes

Warrantless recordation by party to conversation did not violate this part. 64 H. 659, 649 P.2d 346 (1982).

Provisions of this part and article I, §7 of state constitution not relevant to question of legality of electronic eavesdropping activities conducted in California. 83 H. 187, 925 P.2d 357 (1996).

§803-47.8 Delay of notification. (a) A governmental entity may as part of a request for a court order include a provision that notification be delayed for a period not exceeding ninety days if the court determines that notification of the existence of the court order may have an adverse result.

(b) An adverse result for the purpose of subsection (a) of this section is:

(1) Endangering the life or physical safety of an individual;

(2) Flight from prosecution;

(3) Destruction of or tampering with evidence;

(4) Intimidation of a potential witness; or

(5) Otherwise seriously jeopardizing an investigation or unduly delaying a trial.

(c) Extensions of delays in notification may be granted up to ninety days per application to a court. Each application for an extension must comply with subsection (e) of this section.

(d) Upon expiration of the period of delay of notification, the governmental entity shall serve upon, or deliver by registered mail to, the customer or subscriber a copy of the process or request together with notice that:

(1) States with reasonable specificity the nature of the law enforcement inquiry; and

(2) Informs the customer or subscriber:

(A) Information maintained for the customer or subscriber by the service provider or request was supplied to or requested by that governmental authority and the date on which the supplying or request took place;

(B) Notification of the customer or subscriber was delayed;

(C) The governmental entity or court that made the certification or determination upon which the delay was made; and

(D) The provision of this part that allowed the delay.

(e) A governmental entity may apply to the designated judge or any other circuit judge or district court judge, if a circuit court judge has not yet been designated by the chief justice of the Hawaii supreme court, or is otherwise unavailable, for an order commanding a provider of an electronic communication service or remote computing service to whom a search warrant, or court order is directed, not to notify any other person of the existence of the search warrant, or court order for such period as the court deems appropriate not to exceed ninety days. The court shall enter the order if it determines that there is reason to believe that notification of the existence of the search warrant, or court order will result in:

(1) Endangering the life or physical safety of an individual;

(2) Flight from prosecution;

(3) Destruction of or tampering with evidence;

(4) Intimidation of potential witnesses; or

(5) Otherwise seriously jeopardizing an investigation or unduly delaying a trial. [L 1989, c 164, pt of §1; am L 2006, c 200, pt of §4]

Section: Previous  803-44.7  803-45  803-46  803-47  803-47.5  803-47.6  803-47.7  803-47.8  803-47.9  803-48  803-48.5  803-49  803-50    Next

Last modified: October 27, 2016