Technology

This bill designates March 25, 2026, as Women and Girls in STEM Day in the State of Delaware. It is a symbolic resolution that does not create new laws or require funding, but instead recognizes the importance of encouraging women and girls to pursue careers in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. The measure was passed by both the Senate and the House of Representatives and serves as an official state recognition rather than a policy change.

This Act requires that Department of Finance employees submit to criminal background checks and are subject to continuous criminal history monitoring.  It also authorizes the Department to submit contractors or third parties, that require or may require access to Department systems, facilities, or data, to submit to a criminal background check and continuous criminal history monitoring.

Ohio recently adopted “Braden’s Law”, named after Braden Markus. Braden, a high school student, tragically took his own life after being coerced into sharing sensitive photographs online and then threatened with release of the photographs on social media if he did not pay money. Braden’s parents, Jenn and Jarod, endured months of anguish after being denied access to Braden’s personal cell phone records. In response, part of Braden’s Law requires courts to adjudicate a parent or legal guardian’s request for an order directing access to a deceased minor’s digital assets and digital accounts within 30 days. In Delaware, a fiduciary can access to digital assets and digital accounts under Chapter 50 of Title 12. A fiduciary must send to the custodian of digital assets or digital accounts a valid written request for access. The custodian must comply with the valid written request within 60 days. If the custodian fails to comply, the fiduciary can ask the Court of Chancery (the “Court”) for an order directing the custodian to grant access to the digital assets. If the fiduciary seeking access to a digital asset or digital account is a parent or legal guardian of a minor deceased account holder, this Act requires the Court to treat the application as expedited and aim to resolve the application within 30 days after the application is filed. This Act also makes technical corrections to conform existing law to the standards of the Delaware Legislative Drafting Manual.

This Act broadens the scope of a special fund administered by the Office of the Deaf and Hard of Hearing that provides telecommunications assistance to Delaware residents who have deafness, hearing loss, or speech disabilities related to deafness or hearing loss. This Act authorizes the office to provide residents with assistive devices that facilitate communication or provide users with information pertaining to emergencies. It also authorizes the Office to employ individuals to administer the program, provide education, and manage program resources. This Act adds restrictions on how money in the Fund may be spent and requires a three-month reserve be maintained to ensure financial solvency of the Fund. This Act also requires the Office of the Deaf and Hard of Hearing to file an annual report with the Governor, the Chief Clerk of the House, and the Secretary of the Senate concerning the performance of the fund in the previous fiscal year.

This Act limits circumstances in which personal identifiable information about applicants or holders of driving privilege cards may be released to those instances where the Delaware Attorney General gives specific approval or where the request for information is in a valid court order. It also amends existing provisions relating to disclosure of driver and motor vehicle information to limit the disclosure or re-disclosure of citizenship or immigration status information and related sensitive personal information. Such information may be released pursuant to a court order, with the approval of the Delaware Attorney General, for voter registration purposes, and where otherwise explicitly authorized by statute.

This Act prohibits law-enforcement agencies from entering into agreements with federal immigration enforcement authorities to enforce immigration violations or share immigration enforcement related data. This Act is not intended to prevent a law-enforcement agency from working with the federal government on other public safety efforts.

This Act is a Substitute for SB 142 and differs from SB 142 in the following ways: 1. Specifies that schools must provide age-appropriate training to students about the dangers and warning signs of sexual extortion, including online safety. 2. Delays implementation of employee training and student instruction to August 1, 2027. 3. Makes additional technical corrections to § 4163 of Title 14. In 2022, the FBI reported that law enforcement received over 7,000 reports related to the financial sexual extortion of minors, resulting in 3,000 victims and more than a dozen suicides. In 2023, South Carolina adopted “Gavin’s Law” in honor of Gavin Guffey, the son of Representative Brandon Guffey. Gavin was victim of sexual extortion, which led him to tragically take his own life at only 17 years old. Gavin’s Law created the crime of sexual extortion in South Carolina. In Delaware, sexual extortion is a crime under § 774 of Title 11. It is classified as a Class E felony punishable by up to 5 years in prison. This Act increases the penalty for sexual extortion to a Class B felony, which is punishable by a minimum of 2 years in prison up to a maximum of 25 years in prison, under the following circumstances: 1. The defendant is an adult and the victim is a child, as defined in § 1100 of Title 11, or a vulnerable adult, as defined in §1105 of Title 11. 2. The defendant’s sexual extortion of the victim causes the victim to suffer serious physical injury or death. Gavin’s Law also requires school districts to educate students, and their parents or guardians, about the crime of sexual extortion. South Carolina’s Department of Education recommended including the required education in the Erin’s Law curriculum. Delaware has adopted its own version of Erin’s Law, under § 4163 of Title 14, that requires school districts and charter schools to provide appropriate training to employees and students, and to provide information to parents, about personal body safety, child safety, and how to detect and report child abuse. This Act specifies that information about the crime of sexual extortion must be included in the educational programming required by Erin’s Law. This Act also makes technical corrections to conform existing law to the standards of the Delaware Legislative Drafting Manual, including restructuring § 774 of Title 11.

This Act is the first leg of an amendment to the Delaware Constitution to make clear that the right of individual privacy is essential to the well-being of a free society and may not be infringed without a showing of a compelling state interest. The U.S. Supreme Court has long interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment’s prohibition against the State depriving a person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law to prevent arbitrary or unreasonable action by the State. Specifically, in 1923, the Court, in Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 stated: “While this Court has not attempted to define with exactness [of] the liberty thus guaranteed [under the Fourteenth Amendment], the term has received much consideration and some of the included things have been definitely stated. Without doubt, it denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.” In the 1965 decision in Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, the U.S. Supreme Court found that a law making the use of contraceptives a criminal offense violated the right to privacy. The Court held that within the Bill of Rights, “Various guarantees create zones of privacy. The right of association contained in the penumbra of the First Amendment is one, as we have seen. The Third Amendment in its prohibition against the quartering of soldiers ‘in any house’ in time of peace without the consent of the owner is another facet of that privacy. The Fourth Amendment explicitly affirms the ‘right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.’ The Fifth Amendment in its Self-Incrimination Clause enables the citizen to create a zone of privacy which government may not force him to surrender to his detriment. The Ninth Amendment provides: ‘The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.’" More recently, in Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), the Court stated that “our laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education.” In explaining the respect the Constitution demands for the autonomy of the person in making these choices, the Lawrence Court noted that the Court previous held that “[t]hese matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.” In reaching its ruling, the Lawrence Court held that the petitioners were “entitled to respect for their private lives. The State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime. Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government. ‘It is a promise of the Constitution that there is a realm of personal liberty which the government may not enter.’” The General Assembly proposes the enactment of this constitutional amendment guaranteeing a right of individual privacy to secure for Delawareans the rights the U.S. Supreme Court has previously found emanate from the federal constitution in the face of concerns regarding the continued effect of these U.S. Supreme Court precedents. Amending the Delaware Constitution requires not only the passing of the changes in this Act but also passage of the same changes after the next general election by the next General Assembly. This Act requires a greater than majority vote for passage because § 1 of Article XVI of the Delaware Constitution requires the affirmative vote of two-thirds of the members elected to each house of the General Assembly to amend the Delaware Constitution.

This Act prohibits the DOE, public schools, and operators of companies that hold digital student data from sharing student information with immigration enforcement agencies without permission from the DE AG.

Reverse-keyword court orders enable the government to obtain technology search data without identifying any specific person as to which there is probable cause to believe they have committed or will imminently commit a crime. The profusion of electronic devices and apps in recent years has allowed recordation of numerous details of citizen’s everyday lives, that the government should not be permitted to collect and review at will. Such general searches allow the government to sweep in personal information about hundreds or thousands of people who are not suspected of having committed any crime. These searches are an invasion of privacy, have a potentially chilling effect on civil liberties, and sidestep requirements for individualized suspicion that are otherwise required for a lawful search. This House Substitute for House Bill No. 145 would prohibit law enforcement and courts from requesting, issuing, or enforcing reverse-keyword court orders and reverse-keyword requests, with the exception that reverse-keyword court orders and requests may be utilized to investigate suspected Class A Felonies so long as the search query returns 5 or fewer search hits. It also requires the suppression of evidence derived from an unlawful reverse-keyword search.