This Act makes various changes related to Juvenile Probation and Parole Officers employed by the Department of Services for Children, Youth, and Their Families (DSCYF) in the Division of Youth Rehabilitative Services’ Serious Juvenile Offender (SJO) Unit. Juvenile Probation and Parole Officers in the SJO Unit are specialized staff who are responsible for monitoring the highest-risk youth. Unlike the majority of the Division’s Community Services staff monitoring youth on pretrial supervision or aftercare, the officers in the SJO Unit are sworn law enforcement officers authorized to carry a firearm and enforce warrants. This Act does not change the existing powers and duties of DSCYF Juvenile Probation and Parole Officers, but instead updates Delaware Code to align with their position classification. This Act adds Juvenile Probation and Parole Officers employed by DSCYF to the Police Officers’ and Firefighters’ Employment Relations Act (POFERA). This will allow the officers in the SJO Unit to seek union representation under the Fraternal Order of Police like the Department of Correction’s Probation and Parole Officers, the DSCYF Juvenile Probation and Parole Officers’ closest state agency counterparts. This Act also adds DSCYF employees to the existing statute that enables Department of Correction employees to receive a service pension after 25 years if they internally promote after 20 years of credited service. This Act also changes references throughout Delaware Code to be consistent with the position classification name and makes technical corrections to existing code to conform to the standards of the Delaware Legislative Drafting Manual.
This Act requires the State to preserve all biological evidence in its custody that is secured in relation to an investigation or prosecution of a crime, for the period of time that the crime remains unsolved or the period of time that a person convicted of the crime remains in custody, regardless of whether the person pleaded guilty. “Biological evidence” in this context includes any item that "contains" some kind of biological material that was collected as part of a criminal investigation or may reasonably be used to incriminate or exculpate any person for an offense. The State may destroy evidence that is likely to contain biological evidence before the expiration of those time periods if all of the following are true: (1) more than 5 years have elapsed since the criminal conviction became final and all appeals are exhausted; (2) the evidence is not in relation to an investigation or prosecution of a Class A to Class E felony; (3) no other provision of federal or state law requires the State to preserve the evidence; (4) the State sends certified delivery of written notice of its intent to destroy the evidence to certain specified recipients, including any person who remains in custody as a result of the criminal conviction, delinquency adjudication, or commitment related to the evidence; and (5) no person who has received such notice, within 180 days of receiving the notice, files a motion for testing of evidence under § 4504 of Title 11 of the Delaware Code or submits a written request for retention of the evidence. In addition, the State is not required to preserve physical evidence that is of a size, bulk, or physical character that makes retention impracticable, but in that case, the State must remove and preserve portions of the evidence that is likely to contain biological evidence related to the offense. If the State is called upon to produce biological evidence that cannot be located and whose preservation was required under the Act, then the court must hold a hearing to determine whether the failure to produce evidence was the result of intentional and willful destruction. If so, the court then must order a postconviction hearing, at which the court will presume that the results of the postconviction DNA testing would have been exculpatory to the petitioner, and impose other appropriate sanctions and order appropriate remedies. If the court determines that the failure to produce evidence was the result of negligence or non-willful destruction, it may provide the appropriate recourse, including ordering a postconviction hearing; at the hearing, presume that the results of the postconviction DNA testing would have been exculpatory to the petitioner; and impose other appropriate sanctions and order appropriate remedies. In addition, the Act requires the Delaware Police Accreditation Commission and Division of Forensic Science to study, promulgate, and implement procedures that effectuate the legislative intent of the Act regarding the proper preservation of biological evidence. The Act takes effect 2 years after its enactment into law. This Act differs from Senate Bill No. 214 in that it revises the definition of biological evidence to include evidence that is likely to contain biological material; requires the State to preserve evidence in a manner consistent with best practices at the time of collection, that prevents contamination, degradation, or reduction of any biological material contained on the evidence; provides that the State may not destroy evidence that is likely to include any biological evidence before the expiration of a certain time period or unless certain conditions are satisfied; and provides examples of remedies that the court may order if the court determines that a failure to produce evidence was the result of intentional and willful destruction or of negligence or non-willful destruction; and takes effect 2 years after enactment, rather than 30 days.
This Act makes the following changes to human trafficking law: (1) It adds “patronizing a victim of sexual servitude” and “ trafficking of persons for use of body parts” to the offenses that may serve as a predicate for forfeiture of property under the trafficking statute. (2) It removes an obsolete reference to charging a minor with delinquency for engaging in prostitution. The Criminal Code was revised in 2019 to define prostitution as a crime that may be committed only by a person who is 18 years of age or older. (3) It adds conduct constituting a human trafficking offense to the list of conduct that constitutes “abuse” for purposes of obtaining a protective order in Family Court.
This Act strengthens essential protections for victims of human trafficking by removing practical barriers that prevent victims from getting convictions or juvenile delinquency adjudications obtained as a result of being a victim of human trafficking vacated and the related criminal or juvenile records expunged. This Act amends § 787 of Title 11 in the following ways: (1) Requires a showing that the offense to be vacated was committed “as a result”, instead of “as a direct result”, of the victims having been trafficked, which recognizes that victims of human trafficking may engage in a range of criminal behaviors related to their exploitation. (2) Provides that a motion to vacate and any hearing or proceeding related to the motion to vacate must remain confidential, unless the court determines good cause exists to open the proceeding, so a victim of human trafficking may seek relief without fear of revictimization. (3) Eliminates the requirement of a mandatory hearing on a motion to vacate unless the Attorney General files a timely objection to the motion. This will allow victims to obtain relief on uncontested motions without needing to relive their trauma through questioning at a formal hearing. (4) Clarifies that the standard of proof for determining eligibility for vacating an adjudication or conviction under § 787(j) is by a preponderance of evidence. (5) Allows a victim to vacate a conviction or adjudication of delinquency under § 787(j) and expunge the records of that conviction or adjudication. Additionally, this Act allows the court to order immediate expungement sua sponte or on request and allows expungements to be ordered by the court deciding the motion to vacate. (6) Establishes guidelines for the Attorney General to request an extension of time, if needed, to respond to a motion to vacate. This Act also aligns the standards for a defense to a charge of prostitution or loitering from “as a direct result” to “as a result” of human trafficking. This matches the change made to the vacatur provisions and keeps the standards in § 787 consistent. This Act also makes technical corrections to conform existing law to the standards of the Delaware Legislative Drafting Manual.
This Act requires a peace officer to consider issuing a juvenile civil citation to a qualified juvenile offender who would otherwise be charged only with specified offenses, and requires that if the peace officer decides not to issue a civil citation and instead charges the juvenile with a crime, the peace officer must document the reason in DELJIS. This Act also requires each law enforcement agency to submit an annual report to the Police Officer Standards and Training Commission about its use of juvenile civil citations. Finally, this Act requires that training on the Juvenile Civil Citation Program be included as part of a police officer’s mandatory training every 2 years.
This Act extends certain limitations on the publication by law-enforcement of the name and photograph of crime suspects. Currently the Code prohibits the publication of the name and photograph of a juvenile suspect unless the juvenile is charged with a violent felony and the publication is necessary to protect the public’s safety. This Act would prohibit the release or publication of an adult suspect’s name or photograph unless the individual is charged with or suspected of a felony and the release is necessary to protect the public’s safety.
This Senate Joint Resolution establishes the Juvenile Justice Educational Transitions Task Force to propose a plan to ensure more successful transitions of youth from Delaware’s secured post-adjudicatory residential placement back into middle school or high school, including consideration of a new educational facility specifically targeted at transition of those youth.
