The act generally prohibits the electronic surveillance of conversations, upon pain of substantial criminal penalties, but permits law enforcement agencies to conduct court-approved wiretapping when investigating specified criminal offenses. Applications for court authorization to wiretap must show probable cause to believe that one of the specified offenses has been or is being committed, and include both the identity of all known perpetrators of the offense, and a description of the sought communications. The court is required to conduct a secret but adversary hearing on the application and may approve the wiretap if it finds probable cause concerning the offense, the likelihood that the wiretap will produce evidence of the offense, and that other means of criminal investigation are inadequate or impracticable. The court may authorize wiretapping for up to 30 days and may approve 15-day extensions, but only pursuant to new applications and fresh sets of probable cause findings. In addition the court order must direct the wiretap agents to minimize the interception of communications not related to the purpose of the tap, to submit periodic reports to the court on the progress of the tap, and to terminate the tap upon attainment of its objective. Wiretapped conversations must be recorded and made available to the court. After the surveillance ends, an inventory notice is given to all persons whose conversations were intercepted. Accused persons are entitled to have the court suppress unlawfully intercepted communications; moreover, persons subjected to unlawful surveillance can recover civil damages of not less than $100 per day. Finally, the act contains a 'sunset' provision which self-terminates the entire legislation 6 years from the date of official approval, which was June 5, 1978. The article analyzes several provisions of the Hawaii law relating to privacy safeguards that are not found in Federal legislation (such as Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968). Pertinent concepts in conventional search and seizure law also are examined. A total of 154 footnotes are supplied. (Author abstract modified)