Sen. Dave Wilson

Maddy summarySB 148 amends Delaware law to designate the Blue Dasher dragonfly as the state's official dragonfly. This procedural bill formally adds the Blue Dasher to Title 29 of the Delaware Code, recognizing it as a new state symbol. The change does not alter existing laws or policies but provides a formal emblem for Delaware's natural heritage. It directly affects Delaware's state identity by expanding its official symbols.

This Act prohibits arrest or detention by any person who does not have explicit statutory authority to carry out an arrest or detention. The intent of this provision is to eliminate any doubt that a “citizen’s arrest” is not permitted in Delaware. Peace officers have statutory authority to make arrests, as do federal law enforcement agents and out-of-state police under some circumstances. There is also limited authority to detain a person suspected of shoplifting provided to a merchant, store supervisor, agent or employee of a merchant in § 840 of Title 11; to detain a person suspected of unlawful recording by a motion picture theater owner, supervisor, agent or employee under § 858 of Title 11; and to detain a person suspected of unlawful acts with a video lottery machine by a video lottery agent or any of its officers, employees or agents under § 1474 of Title 11. This Act also deletes two outdated provisions of Chapter 65 of Title 11 that reference the exercise of arrest by private detectives. At the present time, private investigators do not have authority to make arrests in Delaware.

This Act expands the criminal offense of impersonating a police officer, firefighter, emergency medical technician, paramedic, or fire officer to also prohibit impersonation of a federal officer. This Act also makes technical corrections to conform to the Legislative Drafting Manual and creates a definition of “law-enforcement official,” which includes all of the state officers already explicitly referenced in the statute, as well as federal officers.

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.

Currently, the Department of Correction (“Department”) biennially reviews individuals sentenced to more than 1 year of incarceration to determine if there is good cause to recommend a sentence modification to the Board of Parole for an individual who is not a substantial risk to the community or the individual’s self. Good cause includes the individual’s rehabilitation, serious medical illness or infirmity, and prison overcrowding. While any individual is eligible for consideration due to a serious medical illness or infirmity, only those who have served at least ½ of their sentence for a violent felony or all of the statutorily mandated term of incarceration are eligible for consideration for rehabilitation, prison overcrowding, or another reason. If the Department recommends an individual for sentence modification, the Board of Parole considers the application and, if the Board approves, the sentencing court then makes a final determination on the sentence modification. This Act, which is named in honor of Richard “Mouse” Smith, a Delaware civil rights leader, who spent decades advocating on issues addressed by this Act, is a substitute for Senate Bill No. 10. Like Senate Bill No. 10, this Act revises the process for sentence modification in 3 ways. First, this Act removes the Board of Parole from the sentence modification process and provides that applications for sentence modification are made directly to the sentencing court. Second, this Act provides that an individual who is sentenced to incarceration for more than 1 year may seek a sentence modification in 3 circumstances: (1) The application for a sentence modification is based solely on the person’s serious medical illness or infirmity. (2) The person is 60 years of age or older, has served at least 15 years of the originally imposed Level V sentence, and the application for sentence modification is based solely on the person’s rehabilitation. (3) The person has served at least 25 years of the originally imposed Level V sentence and the application for sentence modification is based solely on the person’s rehabilitation. Third, this Act provides that an individual who is sentenced to incarceration for more than 1 year and whose sentence is reviewed by the Department, but who the Department does not recommend for sentence modification, may directly apply to the court for a sentence modification. Like Senate Bill No. 10, this Act also makes clear that the Department and sentencing court must consider if a sentence modification resulting in the release of an individual who is incarcerated would constitute a substantial risk to a victim of, or witness to, an offense that is the subject of the sentence modification and that the sentencing court must provide an opportunity for the victim and the Department of Justice to be heard. This Act differs from Senate Bill No. 10 as follows: (1) Providing that a person is not eligible for a sentence modification under this Act if the person is serving a statutorily mandated term of incarceration at Level V for a conviction of any offense under this title and has not yet served all of the statutorily mandated portion of the Level V sentence. Senate Bill No. 10 provided the person was not eligible until the person had served ½ of the statutorily mandated portion of the Level V sentence. (2) Making clear that the person’s attorney may file the sentence modification for the person. (3) Making clear that an application for a sentence modification may be filed by those who have served the period of incarceration provided under paragraph (a)(5) and have good cause. (4) Requiring the Department, on completion of the Department’s eligibility review under paragraph (d)(1), to provide the person with information regarding the person’s right to counsel. (5) Providing that the person may retain a private attorney at the person's own expense or request the court refer the person to the Office of Defense Services, and that the person may proceed without an attorney only as provided under court rules. (6) Requiring the Department to biennially conduct the eligibility review required under paragraph (d)(1). Senate Bill No. 10 would have required the Department to make these determinations annually. (7) Requiring the Department to provide to the court, with an application for sentence modification the Department files, a written statement of the satisfied requirements under this Act that form the Department’s basis for recommending the sentence modification. (8) Requiring the Department to provide to the person, the person’s attorney of record, or the Office of Defense Services a written statement of the Department’s reasons for not recommending a sentence modification, including the unsatisfied requirements of this Act that form the Department’s basis for not recommending the sentence modification. (9) Authorizing the court to summarily dismiss an application that does not include the statements from the Department required by this Act, except for an application based solely on the person’s serious medical illness or infirmity. (10) Authorizing the court to summarily dismiss an application if the court determines summary dismissal is warranted. (11) Giving the court discretion to determine how long a person whose application for sentence modification is denied because the court determines the person constitutes a substantial risk to the community or the person’s application lacks good cause. This Act provides the period set by the court may not exceed 3 years. (12) Making clear that if the court denies an application for sentence modification based on a person’s serious medical illness or infirmity, the person may submit a subsequent application if at least 60 days have passed since the date of the court’s denial and if the application demonstrates a material change in the person’s circumstances.

This Act establishes a uniform threshold and procedure for a recount after a primary or general election for a statewide office, State Senator, State Representative, county office, the City of Wilmington, or school district elections. Under this Act, a recount will be conducted if the difference in the number of votes is 1% or less. This Act makes the following changes to current law: • Eliminates the need for a candidate to request a recount after a general election for statewide office, State Senator, State Representative, county office, or office in the City of Wilmington. • Eliminates the need for 25 voters to petition for a recount in school district elections. • Establishes a clear threshold for a recount equal to a difference of 1% or less of the votes cast. Changing the recount threshold to 1% or less will likely be a substantive change to existing law only for statewide elections and county-wide offices in New Castle County. Current law allows a recount after a primary or general election for a statewide office, State Senator, State Representative, county office, or office in the City of Wilmington if the number of votes separating 2 candidates is less than 1,000 votes or ½ of 1% of all of the votes cast for the 2 candidates, whichever is less. • Based on the number of votes cast in the most recent elections, ½ of 1% and 1% of the votes cast will almost always be under 1,000 for State Senator, State Representative, county office, or office in the City of Wilmington. • For statewide offices or county-wide offices in New Castle County, ½ of 1% will almost always be more than 1,000 votes so changing the threshold to 1% or less will allow for recounts after more elections for these offices. Similarly, under existing law, a recount may be requested in a school district election if the difference in the election of a school board member or in the outcome of an election regarding taxes, standard school construction, or bonds is less than 10 votes or ½ of 1% of the total vote, whichever is larger. Both 1% and ½ of 1% of the votes cast will almost always be more than 10 votes. This Act also makes technical corrections to conform existing law to the standards of the Delaware Legislative Drafting Manual, including revisions to align § 1083 of Title 14 with the current responsibilities and practices of the Department of Elections. This Act does not need a super-majority because this Act does not change the City of Wilmington’s authority under its charter because in 1955, the General Assembly enacted 50 Del. Laws. c. 390, § 9, which clearly provides that Chapters 31 and 57 of Title 15 are applicable to the holding of elections in the City of Wilmington.

This resolution establishes the Delaware Nuclear Energy Feasibility Task Force to examine the feasibility, economic impact, regulatory considerations, energy reliability, and environmental implications of deploying Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) in Delaware.

This Act is the second leg of a constitutional amendment to modernize the bail provisions within the Delaware Constitution and clarify the power of the General Assembly to enumerate certain felony offenses for which, or circumstances under which, pretrial release on bail may not be allowed. The first leg of this constitutional amendment was Senate Substitute No. 1 for Senate Bill No. 11 of the 152nd General Assembly, published in Chapter 283 of Volume 84 of the Laws of Delaware. On passage of this second leg by this General Assembly this amendment will become part of the Delaware Constitution. The current constitutional provision providing that only “capital offenses” are potentially not bailable first appeared in its present form in the Delaware Constitution of 1792. At that time, “capital offenses” included many more offenses than the term does today. For example, manslaughter, rape, robbery, burglary, and assaults with weapons were capital offenses, and therefore included as crimes for which a court could order pretrial detention. Thus, over time, certain crimes that the Framers included as potentially not bailable are currently bailable. Presently, a Delaware state court judge cannot order preventive detention in any non-capital case. Instead, the judge can only attempt to set the bail so high that a defendant cannot make it, which means that any defendant, no matter how dangerous and no matter the circumstance, can obtain release if the defendant can fund the bail—even if that defendant poses a certain flight risk or a known threat of harm to the public or to a specific person, such as a witness or victim. This Act is one step toward completing a pretrial release-detention continuum requiring specific evidence-based detention decisions that seek to maximize public safety while minimizing pretrial detention for those for whom detention is not required. Specifically, this Act will do all of the following: (1) Retain the express declaration of a general right to have bail set in a criminal case. (2) Provide that the crimes for which bail may be withheld are capital murder, where the evidentiary proof is positive or presumption of the accusation great, and other specifically identified felony offenses determined by and under procedures prescribed by law where the evidentiary proof is positive or presumption of the accusation great. (3) Ensure that an additional condition precedent to bail being withheld in non-capital cases is a finding by clear and convincing evidence that no condition or combination of conditions of release will reasonably assure the person’s appearance at court proceedings, reasonably assure the protection of the community, victims, witnesses, or any other person, and reasonably maintain the integrity of the judicial process, such that the defendant will not obstruct or attempt to obstruct justice. With the adoption of this Act, Delaware can progress toward the type of modern bail system that has been increasingly adopted by our sister states through amendment of their state constitutions, when needed, and the development of statutory procedures that provide, in appropriate cases, pre-trial detention without bail. And this Act does so by adopting the standards recommended by authoritative sources including the National Conference of State Legislatures, the Uniform Law Commission, the National Center for State Courts, the American Bar Association, and the numerous state legislatures and court systems that have studied pretrial detention and retained or incorporated them in their own state constitutions and laws. This Act, by itself, would not allow that a person charged with a non-capital crime could be held without bail. Rather, no person could be subject to a preventive detention hearing in a non-capital case until the General Assembly revises Chapter 21 of Title 11 of the Delaware Code to prescribe by law the specific felony offenses, circumstances, and procedures under which detention without bail may occur. The General Assembly has made the necessary revisions to Chapter 21 of Title 11 through the adoption of Senate Bill No. 12 of the 152nd General Assembly, published as Chapter 473 of Volume 84 of the Laws of Delaware, which was enacted on September 30, 2024, and will take effect 6 months after the enactment of this Act. 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 when the General Assembly amends the Delaware Constitution.

Maddy summarySB 200 authorizes Delaware to issue general obligation bonds and revenue bonds for state capital projects during the 2025-2026 fiscal year. It appropriates funds from the Transportation Trust Fund, Delaware Transportation Authority's special funds, and general state funds, while also allowing for the reallocation of existing state funds. The bill specifies how these funds can be spent, including for transportation infrastructure and other state capital improvements. This funding package directly affects Delaware state agencies and projects funded through these bond issuances and appropriations.

This Act is based on Senate Substitute No. 3 for Senate Bill No. 4 of the 152nd General Assembly, which modernizes Delaware’s probation system, including by directing the courts, the Board of Parole, and the Bureau of Community Corrections to use the least restrictive probation and parole conditions and the most minimally intrusive reporting requirements necessary to achieve the goals of community supervision.