An Act To Amend Title 20 Of The Delaware Code Relating To First Responders.
Summary
SB 234 amends Title 20 of the Delaware Code, which governs emergency management, to add an explicit statutory definition of “first responder.” The bill states that a first responder includes federal, state, or local law enforcement officers, firefighters, emergency medical services personnel, hazardous materials response team members, 911 dispatchers, emergency managers, and other individuals responsible for protecting life or property and responding to emergencies.
The substitute version also adds a definition of “law enforcement officer” for this chapter, tying that term to existing definitions in Titles 11 and 29 of the Delaware Code and to the federal definition in 18 U.S.C. 115(c)(1). The stated purpose is to remove ambiguity in Chapter 31 of Title 20, where the term “first responder” is used but not previously defined, and to make minor technical corrections to the definition language.
Impact
The bill would affect Delaware’s emergency management statutes by clarifying who is covered when the term “first responder” is used in Chapter 31 of Title 20. It does not appear to create new programs or benefits by itself, but it provides a legal definition that can be used in interpreting or administering existing emergency management provisions. The added cross-references for law enforcement officers also help align this chapter with other parts of Delaware law and federal law, reducing uncertainty for state and local agencies, emergency personnel, and potentially courts or administrators applying the statute.
Sentiment
The available voting history suggests strong support for the bill, with the Senate passing it 19-0 on third reading. No committee transcript is available, but the bill synopsis frames the measure as a clarifying and technical update rather than a substantive policy change. Overall, the tone around the bill appears favorable and noncontroversial, focused on definitional clarity for emergency management personnel.
Contention
There is little evidence of major controversy in the materials provided. The only notable drafting issue addressed by the substitute bill is the scope of the term “law enforcement officer,” which the substitute clarifies by incorporating existing state and federal definitions. That suggests the main point of attention was ensuring the definition was precise enough to cover the intended personnel without ambiguity, rather than disagreement over the policy itself.