Haw. Rev. Stat. » Haw. Rev. Stat. / Chapter 587A
Hawaii Revised Statutes

Haw. Rev. Stat. § 587A-8 (2025)

Protective custody by police officer

✓ laws through the 2025 session: the 2026 session is not included
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section HI-LEGcapitol.hawaii.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

     §587A-8  Protective custody by police officer.  (a)  A police officer shall assume protective custody of a child:

     (1)  With the consent of the child's family;

     (2)  Upon order of the court; or

     (3)  Without the consent of the child's family and without a court order if, in the discretion of the police officer, the officer determines that exigent circumstances are present.

     (b)  The department shall assume temporary foster custody of the child when a police officer has completed the transfer of protective custody of the child to the department as follows:

     (1)  A police officer who assumes protective custody of a child shall complete transfer of protective custody to the department by presenting physical custody of the child to the department; or

     (2)  If the child is or will be admitted to a hospital or similar institution, the police officer shall immediately complete the transfer of protective custody to the department by notifying the department and receiving an acknowledgment from the hospital or similar institution that it has been informed that the child is under the temporary foster custody of the department. [L 2010, c 135, pt of §1; am L 2024, c 144, §2]

 

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1 case, 2017–2017 · leading case: United States v. Patrakis, 297 F. Supp. 3d 1123 (D. Haw. 2017).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
United States v. Patrakis, 297 F. Supp. 3d 1123 (D. Haw. 2017). · cites it 3× “CONCLUSION Because the third-party witness had actual or apparent authority to consent to search of Defendant's DropCam account, and the video contents of that account *1130 supported a warrantless entry into Defendant's residence because of imminent harm to minors and as…”
Haw. Rev. Stat. § 587A-8(a)(1): 1 case
United States v. Patrakis, 297 F. Supp. 3d 1123 (D. Haw. 2017). “CONCLUSION Because the third-party witness had actual or apparent authority to consent to search of Defendant's DropCam account, and the video contents of that account *1130 supported a warrantless entry into Defendant's residence because of imminent harm to minors and as…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.