Where defendant failed to adduce sufficient evidence to support claim of the exercise of a constitutionally protected native Hawaiian right and knowingly entered landowner's property which was fenced in a manner to exclude others, trial court properly concluded that defendant was unlawfully on property in violation of subsection (1). 89 H. 177, 970 P.2d 485.

Where persons were allowed on hotel premises if invited by hotel guests, State had burden to prove that defendants were not so invited. 2 H. App. 264, 630 P.2d 129.

As criminal liability in section (1993) based only on contemporaneous refusal to obey warning or request to leave premises, no conviction where defendant returned to bar more than a month after being given warning not to return to premises for a year. 80 H. 372 (App.), 910 P.2d 143.

Finding by court that property was "commercial premises" protected by this section not clearly erroneous. 80 H. 460 (App.), 911 P.2d 95.

Conflict with administrative rules. 78-2 HLR 78-781.