Haw. Rev. Stat. » Haw. Rev. Stat. / Chapter 711
Hawaii Revised Statutes

Haw. Rev. Stat. § 711-1112 (2026)

  Interference with the operator of a public transit vehicle

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section HI-LEGcapitol.hawaii.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

     §711-1112  Interference with the operator of a public transit vehicle.  (1)  A person commits the offense of interference with the operator of a public transit vehicle if the person interferes with or lessens the ability of the operator to operate the public transit vehicle by:

     (a)  Intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causing bodily injury to the operator of the public transit vehicle; or

     (b)  Threatening, by word or conduct, to cause bodily injury to the operator of the public transit vehicle with the intent to terrorize, or in reckless disregard of the risk of terrorizing the operator of the public transit vehicle.

     (2)  For the purposes of this section, "public transit vehicle" means:

     (a)  Any public paratransit vehicle providing service to the disabled;

     (b)  Any transit vehicle used for the transportation of passengers in return for legally charged fees or fares, including any taxi; or

     (c)  Any transit vehicle owned or operated by a government entity, including any school bus.

     (3)  Interference with the operator of a public transit vehicle is a class C felony. [L 1996, c 87, §3; am L 2023, c 191, §2]

 

Cross References

 

  Unauthorized entry into motor vehicle, see §§708-836.5 and 708-836.6.

 

COMMENTARY ON §711-1112

 

  Act 87, Session Laws 1996, added the new offense of interference with the operator of a public transit vehicle due to the increased danger to the public involved when the operators are terrorized or assaulted.  Conference Committee Report No. 30.

  Act 191, Session Laws 2023, amended §711-1112 to make clarifying and conforming amendments to the offense of interference with the operator of a public transit vehicle.  These amendments facilitated other amendments made by Act 191 establishing the offense of interference with the operation of a public transit vehicle.  The legislature found that public transit vehicles provide essential transportation services to thousands of residents and visitors across the State.  Many Hawaii residents and visitors rely on public transportation for education, employment, health care, housing, and community purposes.  Act 191 served as a deterrent against acts that interfered with the safe and timely operation of public transit vehicles.  Conference Committee Report No. 20, House Standing Committee Report No. 1628.

 

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1998–2021 · leading case: State v. Cardenas., 500 P.3d 492 (Haw. App. 2021).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Cardenas., 500 P.3d 492 (Haw. App. 2021). · cites it 19× “The state of mind was specified in Element Three, that "the Defendant did so in reckless disregard of the risk of terrorizing" Lake, and referenced the "reckless" state of mind for the offense under HRS § 711-1112. The jury was also instructed that: "You must consider all the…”
State v. Jumila, 950 P.2d 1201 (Haw. 1998). · cites it 4× “4; Interference with the Operator of a Public Transit Vehicle, HRS § 711-1112; Promoting Prostitution in the First Degree, HRS § 712-1202; Promoting Prostitution in the Second Degree, HRS § 712-1203; Promoting Gambling in the First Degree, HRS § 712-1221; Promoting Gambling…”
State v. Cardenas (Haw. App. 2021). · cites it 2× “166) in the above case is hereby corrected as follows: At page 26, in the 27th line, the word "711-7112" should be replaced with "711-1112" so that as corrected, the text reads as: "with HRS § 711-1112." The clerk of the Court is directed to take all necessary steps to notify…”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 711-1112(1)(b) — 1 case
State v. Cardenas., 500 P.3d 492 (Haw. App. 2021). “The state of mind was specified in Element Three, that "the Defendant did so in reckless disregard of the risk of terrorizing" Lake, and referenced the "reckless" state of mind for the offense under HRS § 711-1112. The jury was also instructed that: "You must consider all the…”
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.