Since late 2024, municipalities across the state have been struggling with how to pass and enforce ordinances related to loitering and panhandling.

The cause of the struggle was an agreement reached between the Delaware Department of Justice and the ACLU directing police in Delaware to no longer enforce current loitering and solicitation laws in public spaces. The agreement was a settlement to a lawsuit brought by the ACLU, and was sparked due to constitutional concerns connected to the First and Fourth Amendments.

Wilmington reporter Brianna Hill and Rural Communities reporter Maggie Reynolds join the podcast to discuss how this issue has been showing up in Delaware’s two biggest cities. Although Dover and Wilmington are very different municipalities, there are similarities in how the city councils have been trying to navigate passing new ordinances. The decisions these cities reach could provide a template for how other towns in Delaware try to address the issue. 

The podcast was hosted by Director of Community Engagement David Stradley.

This transcript has been edited for length and clarity.

In many ways, this issue carries on the work you both were part of in Spotlight’s end-of-the-year series on homelessness in Delaware as these loitering and panhandling laws are frequently seen as targeting unhoused populations. Even though you cover very different areas of Delaware, you’re each seeing this as a controversial issue at the moment.

For each of you, how did the topic first come on your radar as a reporter? And how is it playing out in your reporting area? We’ll start with Brianna as you’ve been following this since close to the beginning. 

HILL: The topic first came up on my radar in late 2024 when law enforcement removed the bench from in front of the Episcopal Church of Saints Andrew and Matthew in downtown Wilmington. This was after the ACLU of Delaware and the state settled this lawsuit, which banned local police from arresting individuals who were panhandling or lingering in public areas. In the agreement, the attorney general agreed to no longer enforce Delaware’s state panhandling and solicitation laws, as well as Wilmington’s.

So these laws are still in the books, but law enforcement is not supposed to use them. The bench incident happened less than an hour after the settlement agreement came out between the ACLU. So that was my start into the topic of loitering and how it connected very closely to the homeless population in the city.

Wilmington is currently working on a loitering ordinance. As a result of the lawsuit with the ACLU, the attorney general basically said we won’t enforce what’s currently on the books, but we will amend them to make them constitutional.

So recently, I think it was back in November, the newest ordinance proposed by Wilmington City Councilman Chris Johnson was proposed, to update the city’s loitering statute. Not too many people agreed with it, and it was taken off of the agenda. It was supposed to go to committee in February, but it was taken off the agenda to be reworked because the ACLU sent another letter to Wilmington basically saying, “Hey, you can’t put this on the books.”

They are in the process of working on that right now. 

And then Maggie, for you, how has this shown up in Kent or Sussex counties? 

REYNOLDS: My main focus with this has been in Dover. 

Dover has been discussing various forms of an ordinance like this, in my understanding, since 2022 – so before that attorney general ruling in 2024 – like a dawdling ordinance or something else relating to loitering.

The most recent iteration was introduced in October by City Councilman David Anderson. This is an ordinance that focuses on people lingering on street medians or not crossing a roadway when they’re supposed to. 

Similar to what Brianna was saying, when Anderson introduced that ordinance, the ACLU responded quickly saying that they would challenge its constitutionality if it wasn’t amended. And so since then it’s been going through various small amendments, I would say, to tweak wording and language and just a lot of debate and pushback from different council members and residents about the ordinance – if it is really focused on traffic safety or if it is trying to curb people’s rights to ask for money, and if it would be subject to legal challenge if passed. 

The attorney general and Department of Justice agreement back in 2024 paused these ordinances out of constitutional concerns. Can either one of you clarify how this issue plays out as a constitutional concern?

REYNOLDS: I can talk about the First Amendment concerns. That would be that these ordinances are limiting a person’s First Amendment right to freedom of speech, which would include freedom to ask for money. 

The Department of Justice has been talking about this updated ordinance that would be constitutional. In response to that ruling in 2024, Attorney General Jennings promised that they would create an updated ordinance. They say it’s supposed to be more narrowly tailored to just focus on pedestrian safety and not make as much commentary on people’s rights to ask for money. 

So that’s kind of where the distinction lies, with these First Amendment concerns. And it’s a little bit of a blurry line of what is preventing people from asking for money and what is focused just on traffic safety. 

I know that when the ACLU responded initially to Dover’s drafted ordinance, they said that it wasn’t narrowly tailored enough to just be focused on pedestrian safety and that there could be a burden of proof that Dover would need to show they have really serious pedestrian or traffic safety issues. That could be a way to make it constitutional. 

Brianna, in Wilmington is it also First Amendment-related or is it something else?

HILL: I think that it is closer to the Fourth Amendment with Wilmington’s ordinance specifically, because it gives law enforcement so much discretion as it’s currently written on how to enforce loitering.

In one of the clauses, it says if someone is out in a time where a “law abiding citizen” wouldn’t be outside then law enforcement have a right to go up to that person and possibly fine them for loitering. 

Many of the complaints that I’ve heard publicly have been against this concept of you can basically look at someone and say that they’re loitering, maybe because of what they look like or because they were sitting on the step too long, but you don’t really know why. 

It also gives law enforcement the authority to kind of just go up to someone who they think is loitering and ask for ID and their purpose for being outside. If they can’t provide those things, then they can be fined. So, I think that’s what we’re dealing with in the city. 

REYNOLDS: I haven’t heard the Fourth Amendment issues come up directly [in Dover], but related to what Bri was mentioning, I’ve heard concerns that this ordinance would give too much discretion to individual police officers to make those decisions. And I think that relates to both First Amendment and Fourth Amendment concerns. 

HILL: Yeah, I think it’s probably the same way over here [in Wilmington]. I haven’t heard anyone cite the First Amendment explicitly, but it kind of falls into this broader scope of telling someone where they can and can’t be in the public and how they asked for money and when they asked for money, I think it’s all related. 

Maggie, is any of the physical landscape of Dover and how that differs from Wilmington, do you think that plays into any of these differences in the arguments?

REYNOLDS: Yes, that’s what I was kind of thinking about as we compared notes, I guess, is that Dover doesn’t have as many people really downtown usually. 

The area around Loockerman Plaza and Loockerman Street is not super heavily trafficked with pedestrians or cars as well compared to downtown Wilmington.  More of where people tend to linger and if they’re asking for money, is usually on Route 13. Saulsbury Road is another one I’ve heard people talk about a lot. 

So then those are bigger roads, cars are driving faster and that maybe has lent itself to more of a focus on people standing in the medians and this traffic safety rhetoric because of how Dover is just as different as a city. 

I must admit, as I have been reading your various articles about the Dover issue, I was picturing Loockerman Plaza and Loockerman Street as where the issue is. So it’s enlightening me that it’s actually more outside of downtown Dover where this is really being seen as an issue.

REYNOLDS: Yes, I’ve walked down Loockerman Street a lot and never really see that [loitering].

Although you are both looking at very different areas of the state, you both frequently end up reporting on similar issues. In addition to these loitering bills, you both have covered the marijuana industry, both covered police accountability. When these things really reach out to a statewide angle, I’m curious how you all decide who is going to write about it.

A few weeks ago Maggie wrote about Attorney General Kathy Jennings sharing proposed updates to the loitering bill with the Joint Finance Committee. You’re both covering this, how did that become Maggie’s story?

HILL: I think Maggie got the tip.

REYNOLDS: Yes, I think it was because one of our editors – Tim Carlin, he’s the editor I report to directly – was at the Joint Finance Committee hearing and was hearing about this discourse going on about the attorney general’s bill. Then he messaged me saying, “Hey Maggie, you want to hop on this tomorrow?”

So it is kind of just sometimes random with who hears about it and who gets looped in. 

In regard to that bill and this updated language that the attorney general is proposing, how do you all see that playing out in Dover and Wilmington? How will that impact these debates that have been ongoing? 

HILL: I was told by the attorney general’s office that they sent the bill to the City of Wilmington to the city’s solicitor, as well as Claire DeMatteis, who was the head of the Wilmington’s Homelessness Task Force. There haven’t been any direct conversations between Councilman Johnson and the attorney general’s office as far as I know.

I think that this can be an outline for Wilmington to look at. It’s targeted, I think, a little bit more toward traffic concerns, but it’s a little bit less strict as opposed to what’s currently being discussed in Wilmington. So Chris Johnson may look at it and he may decide to go his own way, but I don’t think there’s been any conversation.

I was talking about the language of the current bill with [the attorney general’s office], and they were like “Well, that’s definitely not what we wrote.” So I think they both have kind of gone in different directions. We may be able to see some collaboration, but we’re not sure as of right now.

REYNOLDS: I would say in Dover there’s been quite a bit of interaction between the two. 

Anderson, who introduced the ordinance, has said that he modeled it off of this drafted state bill and so it should provide confidence to people that it’s in line with that bill. But he says that he wants to move ahead with passing it and not wait around for the state because he wants to be a leader and not rely on the confusion in the state and delays. 

Another council member, Andre Boggerty, has said that he doesn’t want Dover to pass this until something’s more settled at the state level in case the city could face a lawsuit or it could be rendered moot by the state. 

So there’s some disagreement over how to handle that.

I’d like to shift here to process. What have been your biggest challenges as you’ve aimed to accurately report on the controversies around panhandling and loitering ordinances?

HILL: The thing I’ve probably had most trouble with is trying to get both sides of the field when it comes to loitering. 

I did make an effort to go out and canvas to try to talk to some business owners who were maybe upset about the current landscape and maybe people sitting outside their stores or just hanging around for a few hours. Most of them didn’t want to comment, but a lot of them said that they didn’t really have any issues with the people who were standing outside their store. 

I went to Eastside and downtown Wilmington in particular – and a lot of people didn’t really have much to say. I’m not sure if they were completely opposed to the measure, but in terms of it being this big issue that people aren’t able to run their businesses correctly because there’s people sitting outside and lounging around their storefronts, I haven’t really gotten that response from the community.

I even went to a soul food restaurant that is right in front of SsAM’s church where many unhoused individuals congregate because SsAM’s church offers homelessness services and they work with the Friendship House to do so. Even that business owner spoke to me and said people will linger outside and people will ask for food and money, but she doesn’t have a problem with either helping them when she can or just telling them to move or leave the area. She in particular was a little bit more concerned about those people not really having a place to stay. 

So I am still trying to find people who do support the loitering ordinance. There was one gentleman who emailed me shortly after my story went out. I think he was a proponent of the loitering ordinance, but I will reach out to him and see what his thoughts are.

But I haven’t gotten too many responses from people who are having a lot of issues with people standing around or asking for money.

Maggie, what have you struggled with trying to convey this to our readers? 

REYNOLDS: I’d say one thing has been this has been discussed [in Dover] repeatedly for quite a while now, like since the end of October. I keep going to meetings thinking maybe this will be the culmination of this debate and then they push it to the future with another amendment or calling someone else in to discuss it. And so trying to find those different angles of how the debate is changing or any new information and also trying to find new voices to include in the story so that I’m not writing the same story over and over. That’s definitely something that comes up in a couple of the towns I cover.

I would also say the debate has gotten very tense and there’s often a lot of shouting between certain members of the public and certain council members or between council members. And some of that I think is about this ordinance, some of it’s about other disagreements they’ve had over the years.

I don’t want to just report on people’s interpersonal issues, but trying to figure out what really the differences are with this specific issue and cut through some of that disagreement.

As you’ve both been following each other’s reporting, have you pulled anything from something the other reporter has reported on with this issue that has helped you or have you ever consulted with each other as you’re working on these articles?

HILL: Maybe a tad with what’s been going on at the state level, because it will funnel down into both Dover and Wilmington as things move along. 

I definitely have used Maggie’s stories for context, and they’ve been really helpful in terms of trying to figure out what’s going on at the state level and in other municipalities.

REYNOLDS: I think Bri is  always really good at going out, like she was talking about, and canvassing different neighborhoods and different residents. I sometimes use that as kind of a way for me to check myself of what sources I’m using or voices.

Hearing her do that process, I realized that I’ve talked with some residents in Dover who would be impacted, that are homeless or do panhandle, after they’ve given public comment at meetings. But I haven’t gone out directly and canvassed people myself. So that’s a goal or something that I’m going to do before my final story on the ordinance.

I think it’s always helpful to read someone else’s approach to adjust for my own. 

Last question here: in your analysis, do these very local city council controversies around panhandling speak to some bigger issue at hand in Delaware and the ties that bind us between counties?

REYNOLDS: You mentioned at the beginning, David, our homelessness series that we worked on in December. I think we found through that series, kind what you were saying, how this is really an issue that’s top of mind for a lot of people up and down the state of Delaware. And I’ve definitely found that in Georgetown a lot or other places in Sussex County as well. 

Part of the issue people are having is they don’t like visibly seeing homeless people or people asking for money or being bothered when they’re on the street. They want their local government to address that. 

These ordinances – some people have said it’s kind of like a Band-Aid way to get people out of the street, so you don’t see them asking for money, but that maybe it’s not a deeper solution to these issues that would take more time and not be a quick fix. 

But yes, maybe just that tension between what some people see as a more surface level solution versus something that would take more time to address the root causes.

HILL: One interesting topic that kept coming up from the [Wilmington] meeting where people were giving public comment about the loitering ordinance was this idea of profiling – which I think is interesting because this ordinance is coming up in Delaware’s biggest city and Delaware’s biggest city is filled with people of color and is majority Black and brown folks. So for that to be a concern, I think is pretty big. 

And if the city does plan to pass something that would kind of provide a loophole for law enforcement to profile individuals, it may come up in other municipalities. Wilmington is the biggest city. So if some things are passed in Wilmington, other municipalities may look at that and go, well, Wilmington did it, so why can’t we? 

So I think that’s interesting to keep an eye out for as things move along. 

REYNOLDS: Definitely. Like you’re saying, I do hear discourse in Dover and Georgetown and places like that of, well look at what Wilmington is doing because Wilmington’s the biggest city. So it’s kind of the model for other places, and especially at Dover, I think, because it is the second biggest city. I think it definitely would be kind of a signal to Dover if Wilmington were to move ahead with this, for how they could approach it too.

Thank you both for sharing your time today and sharing how you are seeing things in Dover, in Wilmington and beyond. 

HILL: Thank you. 

REYNOLDS: Thank you for having us.