Traffic Stops
HRS 286-116 — the license and the insurance card in hand, and either one may be shown on a phone
A licensed driver has a valid driver's license in immediate possession at all times while operating a motor vehicle, along with a valid insurance identification card for the vehicle, and displays both on demand of a law enforcement officer. An officer stopping or inspecting a vehicle for any reason demands that the driver or owner display the license and the insurance card.
Who handles this in Hawaii: Hawaii State Bar Association, Lawyer Referral and Information Service; and legal aid programs and the state offices, listed in the Hawaii directory.
- On demand, the driver or owner may display a mobile driver's license, where the officer has the device capability to verify it, or an electronic insurance identification card, on a mobile electronic device.
- An officer shown either one on a device may view only the license or the card, and is otherwise prohibited from viewing any other content on the device.
- A person who presents a device under the section assumes all liability for any damage to it.
No one charged under the section is convicted if they produce in court, or prove from official records, that they held a driver's license and an insurance identification card and policy that were valid at the time of the arrest.
Where an officer finds a vehicle being driven by a driver without the insurance identification card, the officer issues a citation with the earliest possible date for a court appearance, in every instance.
The Fourth Amendment sets limits on every stop, and the Supreme Court of the United States has drawn several of them. It has held that a stop is reasonable where the officer has probable cause to believe a traffic violation occurred, whatever the officer's actual motive; that an officer making a lawful stop may order the driver, and the passengers, out of the vehicle; that a passenger is seized by the stop and may challenge it; and that a stop may last no longer than its purpose requires, so it may not be extended for a dog sniff without separate reasonable suspicion. It has also held that consent to a search has to be voluntary, judged on all the circumstances, and that the prosecution does not have to prove the person knew they could refuse. Those holdings are a floor: a state's own constitution and statutes can give more protection than they do, never less.
Sources for this section (7)
- HRS 286-116 — License, insurance identification card, possession, exhibition
- Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (1996) — A traffic stop is reasonable when there is probable cause of a traffic violation
- Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 (1977) — An officer may order the driver out of a lawfully stopped car
- Maryland v. Wilson, 519 U.S. 408 (1997) — An officer may order passengers out of a lawfully stopped car
- Brendlin v. California, 551 U.S. 249 (2007) — A passenger is seized by a traffic stop and may challenge it
- Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. 348 (2015) — A stop may not be extended beyond its purpose to run a dog sniff
- Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (1973) — Consent to a search must be voluntary
Legal information, not legal advice. Verified as of October 2026. Applying it to a particular situation is the work of a licensed Hawaii attorney.