There is a growing body of research regarding the detrimental effects to an individual and to society relating to the collateral consequences of arrests and criminal convictions. To name just a few, a criminal history is a significant barrier to obtaining and advancing in a job, finding housing, and gaining additional skills or education. Inability to participate in society in these basic ways contributes to Delaware’s high rate of recidivism and lowers the overall productivity and efficiency of the State. One way to relieve these consequences is to allow for the expungement of records if (1) an arrest did not lead to a guilty disposition or (2) an isolated conviction has been followed by a significant amount of time spent staying out of trouble with the law. At present, Delaware allows adults to petition to have a record expunged in only 2 circumstances: (1) if the arrest or charges never led to a conviction and (2) after a pardon is granted for certain misdemeanor offenses only. This Act allows for mandatory expungement (meaning the expungement must be granted if the petitioner meets the criteria) through the State Bureau of Identification if: (1) a person was arrested or charged but the case was resolved in favor of the petitioner; (2) after 3 years for a single violation; (3) after 5 years for a single misdemeanor. In all cases, a person is eligible for expungement if the person has no prior or subsequent convictions (with an exception for status offenses such as underage alcohol consumption). Allowing expungements for arrests without convictions and minor, isolated convictions through an application to the State Bureau of Identification will ease the burden on the Courts and the Board of Pardons. This Act also gives the Courts the power to decide if a petitioner deserves an expungement, a process called discretionary expungement, if the person seeking the expungement has maintained an otherwise clean record and (1) 1 year has passed since conviction of a violation; (2) 3 years have passed since conviction of a misdemeanor; or (3) 7 years have passed since conviction of a felony or since release from confinement, whichever is later. In all cases, a person is eligible for discretionary expungement if they have no prior or subsequent convictions (with an exception for status offenses such as underage alcohol consumption and for Title 21 driving offenses other than driving under the influence). The person must demonstrate that the failure to grant the expungement would constitute manifest injustice. The Act also creates an avenue for automatic expungement of a person’s criminal record after a pardon has been granted. This new provision for automatic expungement does not limit the Governor’s authority to limit the right to an expungement as a condition of the pardon in any individual case. This Act strikes the Title 10 provisions related to expungement of charges for adults in Family Court and consolidates all provisions relating to expungement of adult records in Title 11. It also makes some conforming changes to cross-references in Title 4 and Title 16. This Act also makes technical corrections to conform existing law to the standards of the Delaware Legislative Drafting Manual. Finally, implementation of this Act is delayed for 180 days to allow State agencies to prepare necessary procedures and forms.
Sponsored bills
This House Concurrent Resolution urges the President and Congress to enact legislation that would reinstate the separation of commercial and investment banking functions that were in effect under the Glass-Steagall Act.
This Act reaffirms the Constitutional requirement that the General Assembly appropriate money belonging to the General Fund by making clear that funds received by the State or a State agency from settlements or other final orders or judgments, other than those funds awarded specifically to a party or consumer or as attorneys' fees, or explicitly directed otherwise by law, are to be deposited to the General Fund and may not be transferred or expended until the funds are appropriated by the General Assembly.
This Act prohibits a person from purchasing, selling, offering for sale, possessing with intent to sell, or importing with intent to sell ivory or rhinoceros horn, except as specified. A violation of this Act or any rule, regulation, or order adopted under this Act is a misdemeanor subject to fines, imprisonment, or both, as specified in this Act. In addition to the specified criminal penalties, this Act authorizes the Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control ("the Department") to impose a civil penalty of up to $10,000 for a violation of this Act or any rule, regulation, or order adopted under this Act. This Act authorizes the Department to permit the purchase, sale, offer for sale, possession with intent to sell, or importation with intent to sell ivory or rhinoceros horn for educational or scientific purposes by a bona fide educational or scientific institution if not prohibited by federal law. This Act does not apply to ivory or rhinoceros horn that is part of a gun, knife, musical instrument, or antique, as long as the ivory or rhinoceros horn component in the item is a fixed component of a larger manufactured item and is not, in its current form, the primary source of value of the item. The requirement that a bona fide antique be at least 100 years old is not a rolling time frame, but is to be a 100 year look back from the effective date of this Act. This Act takes effect 6 months after its enactment into law.
This Act strengthens the role and responsibilities of the Provider Advisory Board in regard to the implementation and enforcement of The Delaware Child Care Act.
This Act prohibits the manufacture, sale, offer to sell, transfer, purchase, receipt, possession, or transport of assault weapons in Delaware, subject to certain exceptions. One exception relevant to individuals is that the Act does not prohibit the possession and transport of firearms that were lawfully possessed or fully applied for before the effective date of this Act; although for these firearms there are certain restrictions relating to their possession and transport after the effective date of this Act. This Act is based on the Firearm Safety Act of 2013 (“FSA”) passed in Maryland in the wake of the tragic slaughtering of children on December 14, 2012, at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. The FSA’s assault weapons ban was upheld as constitutional on February 21, 2017, by the full membership of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, in the case of Kolbe v. Hogan, 849 F.3d 114 (4th Cir. 2017). The names Newtown, Aurora, San Bernardino, Orlando, Las Vegas, and Parkland, among others, have become synonymous with tragic killing of innocent, unsuspecting Americans of all ages and backgrounds, amidst a framework of federal and state laws that have permitted the purchase of weapons designed for the battlefield — not for our schools, our theaters, our places of worship, or our homes. Safety — both for the general public, as well as members of Delaware's law-enforcement community — is the objective of this Act, as it was for the FSA. And, as with the FSA, a primary goal of this Act is to reduce the availability of assault weapons so that when a criminal acts, he or she does so with a less dangerous weapon and less severe consequences. Relying on United States Supreme Court precedent from District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), as well as the holdings of its sister circuits, the full Fourth Circuit concluded that the assault weapons banned by the FSA are not protected by the Second Amendment. The Fourth Circuit was convinced that the banned assault weapons are among those arms that are “like” “M-16 rifles” — “weapons that are most useful in military service” — which the Heller Court singled out as being beyond the Second Amendment’s reach. The Fourth Circuit concluded that Maryland had presented extensive uncontroverted evidence demonstrating that the assault weapons outlawed by the FSA are exceptionally lethal weapons of war. The Fourth Circuit also concluded that the evidence showed the difference between the fully automatic and semiautomatic versions of military-style weapons is slight. Further evidence considered by the Fourth Circuit that motivates this Act is as follows: (1) Like their fully automatic counterparts, the banned assault weapons are firearms designed for the battlefield, for the soldier to be able to shoot a large number of rounds across a battlefield at a high rate of speed, and that their design results in a capability for lethality — more wounds, more serious, in more victims — far beyond that of other firearms in general, including other semiautomatic guns. (2) The banned assault weapons have been used disproportionately to their ownership in mass shootings and the murders of law-enforcement officers. (3) The banned assault weapons further pose a heightened risk to civilians in that rounds from assault weapons have the ability to easily penetrate most materials used in standard home construction, car doors, and similar materials, and that criminals armed with the banned assault weapons possess a “military-style advantage” in firefights with law-enforcement officers, as such weapons allow criminals to effectively engage law-enforcement officers from great distances and their rounds easily pass through the soft body armor worn by most law-enforcement officers. (4) Although self-defense is a conceivable use of the banned assault weapons, most individuals choose to keep other firearms for that purpose. (5) Prohibitions against assault weapons will promote public safety by reducing the availability of those armaments to mass shooters and other criminals, by diminishing their especial threat to law-enforcement officers, and by hindering their unintentional misuse by civilians. (6) In many situations, the semiautomatic fire of an assault weapon is more accurate and lethal than the automatic fire. Finding this evidence and these conclusions by the Fourth Circuit to be strongly persuasive of the applicable framework of constitutional rights, and firmly believing that promoting the safety of the Delaware public and Delaware law-enforcement is a paramount function of the Delaware General Assembly, Delaware legislators file this Act in the name of public safety and with adherence to core constitutional principles.
This resolution proclaims June 19, 2018 as Juneteenth Independence Day in Delaware and encourages the people of Delaware to reflect upon the significant roles and many contributions of African Americans and to celebrate this day with appropriate activities and events.
This bill permits a County government to impose and collect a lodging tax of no more than 3 percent on hotel, motel, and tourist home rooms located in the unincorporated areas of the County.
This bill makes it a crime to sell, transfer, buy, receive or possess a trigger crank or bump-fire device designed to accelerate the rate of fire of a semiautomatic rifle, making such weapon function more like an automatic weapon. A bump stock was used by the gunman in Las Vegas in October 2017. Violation of this provision is a Class E felony.
This legislation creates a benchmark for determining when a treatment or service is no longer experimental or investigational. When Medicare determines that a treatment is safe for its population, commercial insurers in Delaware may no longer deny coverage on that basis. This bill will remove inconsistencies for properly-evidenced treatments between payers.