Posted on: Friday, January 10, 2003

Wiretap change should not be endorsed lightly

Hawai'i's top law enforcement officials say their proposal to change this state's wiretap law is simply a move to get us in line with common practice in most states.

That sounds straightforward enough, but the issue quickly becomes far more complex.

Hawai'i and Ohio are the only two states that require an adversary hearing before a judge can grant a wiretap. That is, the state argues for the wiretap while an attorney appointed to represent the interests of the people will challenge the tap.

In other jurisdictions, a judge only hears from the state. That's what law enforcement wants for Hawai'i, saying it will help immensely in the battle against crystal methamphetamine rings.

No doubt it would. But legislators considering this proposal will have to balance law enforcement efficiency against Hawai'i's well-established privacy rights.

State officials say they rarely, if ever, seek a wiretap authorization because of the difficulty involved in getting it through that hearing. Should the first step be trying for more wiretap approvals under the current system before changing to another? And, might a liberalized wiretap law aimed at drug rings evolve into one that is used in other arenas, including the war on terrorism?

(On that front, local law enforcement officials did the right thing by deliberately choosing not to propose any of the new law enforcement tools in the Federal Patriot Act in their local package.)

The wiretap proposal deserves a fair hearing. But it is not an idea that should be adopted swiftly or treated lightly by lawmakers. In the post-Sept. 11 world, there have already been too many proposals that would erode constitutional protections in the name of law enforcement efficiency.