California lawmakers consider banning police from wearing masks

California lawmakers consider banning police from wearing masks

The California Public Safety Committee is hearing Senate Bill 627, or the ?No Secret Police Act,? that would prohibit law enforcement, at all levels, from covering their faces while conducting operations in the state. The bill would also require officers to be identifiable via their uniform or other means.

SACRAMENTO, Calif. - A committee of state lawmakers on Tuesday were hearing the pros and cons of the ‘No Secret Police Act,’ which would prohibit law enforcement at all levels from covering their faces while conducting operations in the state.

The California Public Safety Committee spent the morning discussing Senate Bill 627, which would also require officers to be identifiable via their uniform or other means.

No Secret Police Act

State Senators Scott Wiener and Jesse Arreguin, both Democrats, proposed the bill citing federal agents activity across California but also an increase in people impersonating officers.

"We do not need secret police in California," Wiener said at a news conference outside San Francisco City Hall, adding that some law enforcement are "grabbing" people and "throwing them into vans and disappearing them."

There would be exceptions to the ban on face coverings, including SWAT teams and officers who wear medical masks during some sort of natural disaster, like where there is smoke.

Riot gear would still be OK under the bill, because those face shields are see-through.

The bill would make it a misdemeanor to violate the rule, if it becomes law.

Many people have already come out against the bill, including former CHP Sergeant, now Assembly member Tom Lackey. 

He and other Assembly Republicans issued a letter in part saying, "this bill won’t promote accountability – it will promote harassment, intimidation, and violence," said Assemblyman Lackey, a retired CHP Sergeant. "It puts a target on every officer’s back – both on and off the job."

Police association says ‘ill-conceived’

A day after the proposal was pitched, Brian R. Marvel, president of the Peace Officers Research Association of California, or PORAC, the largest statewide law enforcement association in the nation representing over 83,000 public safety members, said he wished the senators had reached out to him before introducing the "ill-conceived: idea."

"Let me be clear: California’s local law enforcement officers are not ICE," he said in a statement.

Existing state law prevents California police from enforcing federal immigration policies, and state law enforcement's involvement in the activities "have been focused on protecting Californian’s ability to protest peacefully,"  he stated.

"Using local law enforcement as a punching bag to grandstand against the federal government should not be an acceptable practice from our state leaders," Marvel said. "It is misdirected, misguided, and intolerable."

Marvel said this "unnecessary bill" would effectively ban personal protective equipment – like face shields and gas masks—used in high-risk situations such as riots or chemical exposures.

He said that the bill "would force our officers to choose between personal protection and a misdemeanor, risking their safety and our communities’ safety for a law that solves nothing."

California already has oversight measures to ensure that officers can be identified and held responsible for their actions, Marvel said, including language in the state's penal code which requires uniformed officers to wear a badge, nameplate or other device which clearly displays their ID number or name.

Despite what Marvel said about not being contacted, Wiener said he'd be having conversations with local law enforcement about the bill, but he did not elaborate.

Wiener also acknowledged other potential criticism of the bill, which would be that officers could be doxxed.

He said he didn't want that, but he also didn't want California to become a land of anonymous, secret "Storm Trooper" police.

How would it be enforced? 

If the bill becomes law the question would then become is it enforceable. 

Attorney Mark Reichel a former federal public defender, who has also argued at the Supreme Court, said while he supports the bill he thinks it will immediately be called into question if signed into law. 

"I think the first thing that happens if this passes is the ICE agency files a motion and has a lawsuit in federal court to declare it unconstitutional due to federal supremacy clause, that says when  there is a conflict between state and federal law the federal one is supreme," said Reichel. 

He believes this could stir up enough controversy to potentially be argued in the Supreme Court. 

But, any officer or agent that would face a charge for not complying, will likely not be punished. 

"They’ll get a citation or charge in the California State Court for a misdemeanor crime, in my opinion the federal government under the attorney general they will move the case to federal court right away. And once there, Pam Bondi can dismiss any case she wants as the attorney general," said Reichel.