- Joined
- Nov 26, 2003
- Messages
- 16,832
- Reaction score
- 20,627
California Lawmakers Pass a Mask Ban for Law Enforcement
The legislation responds to immigration raids by federal agents who have shielded their identity. It heads to Gov. Gavin Newsom, who has not said whether he would sign it.
Federal agents stand guard on a road outside an agricultural facility where an immigration raid occurred in Camarillo, Calif.,
California state lawmakers passed a bill on Thursday that would bar most law enforcement officers from covering their faces while interacting with the public, a direct response to immigration raids by masked agents who have been difficult to identify.
California’s Legislature is believed to be the first to pass such a bill, though similar proposals have been introduced in other states and Congress.
The legislation now goes to Gov. Gavin Newsom, whose support is not certain. The legislation, passed by Democratic lawmakers who control both houses of the State Legislature, would apply to local and federal agencies, and questions have been raised about whether the state has the legal ability to regulate federal agents.
“We’re looking at the constitutionality of it,” Mr. Newsom said in July in an interview with the Tennessee Holler, a liberal news site.
The Democratic governor explained at the time that he understood that officers may need masks to protect their safety in limited circumstances, but that he thought it was “insane” how widespread the practice had become.
Supporters of the bill said on Thursday that the ban was even more urgent in the wake of the Supreme Court’s ruling earlier this week that allowed federal agents to resume immigration stops based on factors including ethnicity and if someone is speaking Spanish.
“We are in a truly disaster of a situation where we have secret police, effectively, on our streets,” said Scott Wiener, a Democratic state senator from San Francisco who wrote the bill.
“It’s tearing apart the fabric of society,” he added. “You have communities in Southern California where people are scared to go out on the street, they’re scared to go to work, they’re scared to bring their kids to school. And now is the time for us to say what the rules are.”
Mr. Wiener’s legislation would bar officers from wearing face coverings that shield their identities, such as the ski masks, balaclavas and neck gaiters that have become common in recent months during President Trump’s immigration crackdown. It does not apply to medical masks, clear plastic face shields, respirators, eye protection or other safety devices.
The bill would take effect in January if signed by Mr. Newsom. The governor has until Oct. 12 to act on the legislation.
Numerous lawmakers described fear and anxiety in California’s many Latino communities. Sasha Renée Pérez, a Democratic state senator from the Los Angeles area, said that one of her constituents was so afraid of immigration agents that he ran onto a freeway and died. She said that her own family members have begun carrying their passports at all times.
“That’s a very strange reality,” Ms. Pérez said.
Opponents of the California bill, including numerous law enforcement agencies, argued that officers must have the choice to cover their faces to protect themselves and their families from retaliation. Limiting the ways officers can keep themselves safe will make it harder to recruit people to work in law enforcement, they said.
“Bad guys wear masks because they don’t want to get caught. Good guys wear masks because they don’t want to get killed,” said Kelly Seyarto, a Republican state senator from Riverside County. “It’s that simple.”
He also argued that the state doesn’t have the power to regulate federal agencies, so that part of the bill is likely to be thrown out in court, and that the bill would wind up creating new civil liability for local officers because of how it would be enforced.
Mr. Wiener pointed to an opinion from the legal scholar Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the University of California, Berkeley School of Law, who argued that the policy is constitutional because it does not only apply to federal agencies. State and local governments can require that federal agencies comply with general laws, Mr. Chemerinsky wrote, such as speed limits and restrictions on the use of force.
“There is no rule saying that just because you work with federal government, you’re exempt from all state law,” Mr. Wiener said.
The California State Senate passed the bill on Thursday, two days after the State Assembly approved the legislation.
Similar bills have been introduced in other states — including New York, Illinois, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania and Michigan — but have not yet passed.
California lawmakers also passed a companion bill on Thursday that would require local, state and federal agents to wear identifying information such as their name or badge number. That bill was less controversial, and while some law enforcement agencies opposed it, the legislation received support from the major association representing local police officers in California.
The legislation responds to immigration raids by federal agents who have shielded their identity. It heads to Gov. Gavin Newsom, who has not said whether he would sign it.
Federal agents stand guard on a road outside an agricultural facility where an immigration raid occurred in Camarillo, Calif.,
California state lawmakers passed a bill on Thursday that would bar most law enforcement officers from covering their faces while interacting with the public, a direct response to immigration raids by masked agents who have been difficult to identify.
California’s Legislature is believed to be the first to pass such a bill, though similar proposals have been introduced in other states and Congress.
The legislation now goes to Gov. Gavin Newsom, whose support is not certain. The legislation, passed by Democratic lawmakers who control both houses of the State Legislature, would apply to local and federal agencies, and questions have been raised about whether the state has the legal ability to regulate federal agents.
“We’re looking at the constitutionality of it,” Mr. Newsom said in July in an interview with the Tennessee Holler, a liberal news site.
The Democratic governor explained at the time that he understood that officers may need masks to protect their safety in limited circumstances, but that he thought it was “insane” how widespread the practice had become.
Supporters of the bill said on Thursday that the ban was even more urgent in the wake of the Supreme Court’s ruling earlier this week that allowed federal agents to resume immigration stops based on factors including ethnicity and if someone is speaking Spanish.
“We are in a truly disaster of a situation where we have secret police, effectively, on our streets,” said Scott Wiener, a Democratic state senator from San Francisco who wrote the bill.
“It’s tearing apart the fabric of society,” he added. “You have communities in Southern California where people are scared to go out on the street, they’re scared to go to work, they’re scared to bring their kids to school. And now is the time for us to say what the rules are.”
Mr. Wiener’s legislation would bar officers from wearing face coverings that shield their identities, such as the ski masks, balaclavas and neck gaiters that have become common in recent months during President Trump’s immigration crackdown. It does not apply to medical masks, clear plastic face shields, respirators, eye protection or other safety devices.
The bill would take effect in January if signed by Mr. Newsom. The governor has until Oct. 12 to act on the legislation.
Numerous lawmakers described fear and anxiety in California’s many Latino communities. Sasha Renée Pérez, a Democratic state senator from the Los Angeles area, said that one of her constituents was so afraid of immigration agents that he ran onto a freeway and died. She said that her own family members have begun carrying their passports at all times.
“That’s a very strange reality,” Ms. Pérez said.
Opponents of the California bill, including numerous law enforcement agencies, argued that officers must have the choice to cover their faces to protect themselves and their families from retaliation. Limiting the ways officers can keep themselves safe will make it harder to recruit people to work in law enforcement, they said.
“Bad guys wear masks because they don’t want to get caught. Good guys wear masks because they don’t want to get killed,” said Kelly Seyarto, a Republican state senator from Riverside County. “It’s that simple.”
He also argued that the state doesn’t have the power to regulate federal agencies, so that part of the bill is likely to be thrown out in court, and that the bill would wind up creating new civil liability for local officers because of how it would be enforced.
Mr. Wiener pointed to an opinion from the legal scholar Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the University of California, Berkeley School of Law, who argued that the policy is constitutional because it does not only apply to federal agencies. State and local governments can require that federal agencies comply with general laws, Mr. Chemerinsky wrote, such as speed limits and restrictions on the use of force.
“There is no rule saying that just because you work with federal government, you’re exempt from all state law,” Mr. Wiener said.
The California State Senate passed the bill on Thursday, two days after the State Assembly approved the legislation.
Similar bills have been introduced in other states — including New York, Illinois, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania and Michigan — but have not yet passed.
California lawmakers also passed a companion bill on Thursday that would require local, state and federal agents to wear identifying information such as their name or badge number. That bill was less controversial, and while some law enforcement agencies opposed it, the legislation received support from the major association representing local police officers in California.
Last edited:
