SB 32 creates a new subchapter in Title 11 of the Delaware Code establishing privacy protections for correctional officers and probation and parole officers employed by the Department of Correction, including active, former, and retired personnel. The bill allows an officer to submit a written request to keep specified personal information private, and it defines covered information broadly to include home address, phone numbers, email address, financial account information, tax records, and the identities of minor children. The request can be made directly to a government agency or person, or through the Department, which must also develop a process for notifying agencies and enroll the officer in an online privacy vendor service.
Once a valid request is received, government agencies must remove the protected information from publicly available content within 72 hours and may not republish it without consent. The bill also restricts private persons from publicly posting or displaying the information after notice, and it prohibits sharing, soliciting, selling, or trading the information with intent to create an imminent and serious threat to the officer or family. It provides enforcement tools including injunctive relief, declaratory relief, attorneys’ fees, and a private right of action with damages of at least $10,000 and up to three times actual damages; criminal penalties may also apply where existing Title 11 offenses are met. The law would take effect 180 days after enactment.
The bill’s practical impact is to limit public access to certain personal information of correctional officers and their families in state and local records, online postings, and other publicly available content, while creating a formal opt-in privacy process. It places new administrative duties on the Department of Correction and on government agencies that maintain or publish records, and it may affect websites, directories, and other entities that disseminate personal data. It also extends protections to retired officers and those who leave in good standing for a limited period, reflecting a continuing safety-focused privacy regime rather than a purely employment-based benefit.
The overall sentiment around SB 32 appears strongly supportive. It passed the Senate 16-0 and the House 39-0, indicating broad bipartisan agreement and no recorded opposition in the voting history provided. The absence of committee transcript debate suggests the measure was not especially controversial in the available record, and the unanimous votes imply consensus that correctional officers and probation and parole officers face unique safety risks that justify enhanced privacy protections.
The main points of contention that could arise from the bill are the balance between officer privacy and public access to government records, the scope of information covered, and the compliance burden on agencies and private publishers. The bill also raises potential concerns about enforcement against online platforms and other persons who may repost information, though it includes a Section 230 savings clause for interactive computer services. Because the bill requires a written request before protections attach, another practical issue is whether officers will understand and use the process, and whether agencies can implement the 72-hour removal requirement consistently.
SB 32 amends Title 11 by adding a new subchapter on privacy for correctional officers and probation and parole officers. It creates a notice-based system that restricts government agencies and private persons from publicly posting or displaying specified personal information after a written request, requires removal within 72 hours, authorizes civil remedies and possible criminal penalties, and directs the Department of Correction to administer requests and coordinate privacy services. The bill affects state agencies, local government entities, online publishers, and any person who maintains or disseminates covered personal information.
The bill appears to have enjoyed broad and unified support. It passed both chambers unanimously, with a 16-0 Senate vote and a 39-0 House vote, and there is no committee transcript showing recorded opposition or significant debate. The voting record suggests lawmakers generally agreed that correctional officers and probation and parole officers warrant special privacy protections because of safety concerns tied to their work.
Any contention around SB 32 is likely to center on the tension between personal safety and transparency in public records, along with the administrative and compliance obligations imposed on agencies and information publishers. The bill’s broad definition of personal information, its application to private persons and websites, and its enforcement provisions could raise concerns about overbreadth or implementation, especially for online content. The Section 230 language indicates awareness of possible conflict with internet platform liability, but no specific opposition is reflected in the available record.