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).
§803-48.5 Injunction against illegal interception. Whenever it appears that any person is engaged or is about to engage in any act that constitutes or will constitute a felony violation of this part, the attorney general may initiate a civil action in a circuit court of this State to enjoin the violation. The court shall proceed as soon as practicable to the hearing and make a determination of the action; provided that at any time before final determination, the court may enter a restraining order or take any other action that is warranted to prevent a continuing and substantial injury to the State or to any person or class of persons for whose protection the action is brought. A proceeding under this section is governed by the Hawaii rules of civil procedure; except that, if an indictment, information, or criminal complaint has been returned against the respondent, discovery shall be governed by the Hawaii rules of penal procedure. [L 2006, c 200, §2]
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 NextLast modified: October 27, 2016