Officers in Delaware would have shown ID during enforcement, with exceptions

Subject to listed exceptions, officers doing enforcement work in Delaware would have displayed their agency and a name or badge number. This would have covered officers working in Delaware, including federal officers, federal agents, and people acting for federal law enforcement. The rule would not have applied during active undercover work or when protective gear prevented display. It would not have applied amid imminent danger to people or property, a perpetrator’s escape, or destruction of evidence. It also would not have applied when a specific, explainable reason showed that displaying ID would pose serious danger to the officer’s physical safety.

Law enforcement agencies operating in Delaware would have kept and publicly posted written ID policies. This would have covered law enforcement agencies operating in Delaware and their sworn staff. Each policy would have required sworn staff to show their agency and a name or badge number during enforcement work. Each policy would have listed narrow exceptions for active undercover work, protective gear that prevented display, imminent danger to people or property, a perpetrator’s escape, destruction of evidence, or a specific, explainable reason to expect serious physical danger from showing ID. The agency policy requirement would have begun six months after the act took effect.

Failing to show ID when required would have been a violation; a second or later violation would have been a misdemeanor, a crime. This would have covered officers doing enforcement work in Delaware, including federal officers, federal agents, and people acting for federal law enforcement. A failure would have counted only when none of the ID rule’s exceptions applied. Only the Superior Court could have heard these cases first.