HPD and prosecutors outline enforcement limits on aerial fireworks, urge legal changes and port controls

The Honolulu Police Department and the Department of the Prosecuting Attorney told the City Council Committee on Public Safety and Customer Services on Jan. 16 that enforcing laws against aerial and commercial‑grade fireworks is currently difficult under existing legal definitions and evidentiary standards.

HPD officials, including Acting Assistant Chief (Bridal) Lynch and Major Mike Lambert, described a three‑part enforcement challenge: the volume of illegal aerial devices on Oʻahu, the logistics and safety burdens of seizing and storing explosive devices, and legal requirements that make prosecutions difficult. First Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Thomas Brady and Deputy Florence Nakakuni said definitions in the Revised Ordinances of Honolulu and citations to the U.S. Department of Transportation (49 CFR) impose technical elements — for example, proving an item contains a specified explosive charge or falls under a CFR classification — that prosecutors often cannot meet with typical field evidence.

HPD described operational limits during high‑volume periods such as New Year’s: large numbers of devices and incidents divert officers from other priority calls; bomb‑squad procedures are required for recovered aerial devices and storage for evidence imposes staffing and safety burdens; and aerial devices detonated at night often leave little physical evidence for prosecution. HPD witnesses recommended focusing on interdiction at points of entry (ports and postal channels) to reduce supply and on clearer statutory language to enable constructive‑possession enforcement and civil or administrative tiers for low‑level violations.

Prosecutors explained that the city ordinance currently contains petty misdemeanor/misdemeanor penalties but lacks a felony provision; state law allows higher penalties in some circumstances. Nakakuni said the ordinance’s technical aerial‑device definition references a 130‑milligram threshold and 49 CFR categories, which is difficult to prove after detonation and requires expert analysis for unopened caches. Brady and Nakakuni recommended a two‑track approach: retain technical definitions to support seizures and felony cases for large caches, and add common‑sense, layperson definitions and constructive‑possession language so patrol officers can cite or ticket end users in the field.

Members and prosecutors noted potential evidence limits from aerial surveillance: Brady cited a 2017 U.S. Supreme Court decision limiting warrantless drone surveillance of private backyards and told members that aerial drone observations could be inadmissible in prosecutions. HPD also suggested models such as California’s “safe and sane” lists as a possible path to allow certain approved consumer fireworks while prohibiting other types.

Committee members asked whether creating a city‑level felony is permissible; prosecutors and staff discussed limits on the city council’s authority and indicated alignment between state and city definitions and penalties would be most effective. Members expressed support for drafting clearer, enforcement‑friendly definitions and asked HPD and the Prosecuting Attorney’s Office to share proposed language with the council. Acting Assistant Chief Lynch proposed the council consider a resolution endorsing the drafting work and asked for coordinated action focused on statute definitions, port interdiction and administrative/violation tiers.

No formal vote or ordinance was taken at the hearing. The committee chair said she would take the lead on a council resolution to request statutory definition changes and encouraged HPD and prosecutors to share draft language for legislative consideration.