An Act To Amend Title 11 Of The Delaware Code Relating To Wiretapping And Electronic Surveillance.
Impact
The changes introduced by SB91 are significant as they expand the authority of key state divisions to utilize wiretap evidence for serious crimes. This is in line with providing these divisions the tools necessary to effectively communicate and collaborate in criminal investigations, especially as they pertain to modern forms of criminal activity like human trafficking and cyber fraud. By streamlining the process for these divisions to access such critical investigative tools, the bill aims to bolster law enforcement capabilities in addressing complex criminal activities.
Summary
Senate Bill 91 seeks to amend Title 11 of the Delaware Code, specifically addressing the parameters under which law enforcement may apply for wiretapping and electronic surveillance. The bill modifies existing statutes to allow various divisions within the Delaware Department of Justice—such as the Family, Fraud and Consumer Protection, and Civil Rights and Public Trust divisions—to seek judicial authorization for interception of communications. This is particularly relevant for investigations concerning offenses such as human trafficking and fraud which fall under these newly designated divisions.
Sentiment
Overall, the sentiment surrounding SB91 appears to be largely supportive, especially from law enforcement agencies and state officials who recognize the need for updated legal frameworks to combat evolving threats in crime. However, there may be concerns from civil liberties advocates who caution against the potential for misuse of wiretapping and electronic surveillance powers, calling for safeguards to protect citizens’ rights amidst increased surveillance capabilities. This reflects a balancing act between enhancing law enforcement capabilities and protecting civil freedoms.
Contention
A point of contention that arises from the bill could potentially relate to oversight and the ethical implications of expanded surveillance powers. Critics might argue that further empowering state divisions could lead to infringements on privacy rights if not coupled with strict regulatory frameworks to ensure accountable use of such powers. Moreover, issues surrounding transparency in the application process and the need for judicial oversight in wiretap requests are likely to surface in ongoing discussions about the implications of SB91.
Drug trafficking, wiretapping by ALEA, interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications, Attorney General authorized to apply for court order for intercept and to apply for intercept orders, disclosure of recorded communications, penalties for violations, Secs. 20-2A-1 to 20-2A-15, inclusive, added
Drug trafficking, wiretapping by ALEA, interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications, Attorney General authorized to apply for court order for intercept and to apply for intercept orders, disclosure of recorded communications, penalties for violations, Secs. 20-2A-1 to 20-2A-15, inclusive, added