‘No Secret Police Act’ Bans Face Coverings

California is currently assessing Senate Bill 627, also known as the “No Secret Police Act,” which aims to prohibit law enforcement officers at all levels of government from concealing their faces while interacting with the public during official duties. The bill also mandates that officers wear uniforms displaying their name or other identifying information.

Introduced by State Senators Scott Wiener of San Francisco and Jesse Arreguin of Berkeley, the proposed legislation has created controversy regarding officer safety. SB 627 aims to enhance accountability in California law enforcement.

Senators Wiener and Arreguin argue that public servants, such as law enforcement officers, should be identifiable to the communities they serve. This visibility, they argue, enhances the effectiveness of law enforcement by making it easier for officers to perform their duties and for California to be safer.

Senator Wiener specifically highlighted concerns about federal officers increasingly covering their faces and badges, sometimes wearing generic “Police” jackets, which could lead to impersonation and a perception of “secret police” operating in an “authoritarian state.” Senator Arreguin echoed these sentiments, emphasizing that easily identifiable law enforcement maintains trust and accountability.

Under the provisions of SB 627, any law enforcement officer, whether from a local, state, or federal agency or any person acting on their behalf, would be prohibited from wearing masks or personal disguises during public interactions while on duty. A violation of this section would be classified as a misdemeanor offense.

The bill includes exceptions to its general mask prohibition, permitting medical-grade masks like surgical or N95 respirators to prevent airborne disease transmission when used according to departmental health policies. Masks for smoke exposure during wildfire emergencies are also allowed.

SWAT officers can wear protective gear for their faces; transparent riot gear is permitted if it doesn’t obscure the face. The bill does not apply to the National Guard or military troops.

ICE Operations and Protests in Los Angeles

SB 627 was introduced amid heightened tensions and protests in California, particularly in Los Angeles, following recent ICE immigration operations. Senator Wiener stated that the bill aims to address the “profound terror” caused by these actions and to “end the trend of secret police grabbing people off the streets.”

Unrest in Los Angeles began on June 6, when federal agents arrested day laborers near a Home Depot in Westlake and workers in the Fashion District for allegedly using fake documents. The news sparked outrage, leading to a large protest at the Wilshire Federal Building, which has been holding detained individuals from ICE duties that escalated into violent confrontations with officers and vandalism.

Protests erupted across the county over the following weeks. On June 7, hundreds gathered in Paramount in response to immigration enforcement near a Home Depot, with the FBI investigating individuals throwing rocks at federal vehicles as they passed by.

The escalation of protests led President Trump to deploy 1,700 National Guard troops and 700 U.S. Marines to Los Angeles by June 10, to protect federal buildings. In response, California Governor Gavin Newsom filed a lawsuit against the federal government, deeming the deployment illegal.

By June 14, LAPD reported over 500 arrests related to protest-related crimes, such as assault and looting, with injuries to 10 officers. Incidents included protesters throwing fireworks and setting vehicles on fire.

Alejandro Orellana was charged with conspiracy for allegedly aiding violent protesters, while Adam Charles Palermo faced attempted arson charges for burning a CHP patrol car. Federal authorities launched investigations into the funding of the protests.

The ongoing demonstrations in Los Angeles also coincided with nationwide “No Kings” protests on June 14, which were organized in opposition to President Trump and his policies, including mass deportations. Trump had directed federal immigration officials to prioritize deportations from Democrat-run cities, aiming for the “single largest Mass Deportation Program in History.”

Opposition to Unmasking Federal Agents

The proposal to ban masks for law enforcement, particularly federal agents, has met opposition from various officials and law enforcement organizations.

Kristi Noem, the Homeland Security Secretary, defended mask use by federal agents for their safety and to protect their identities during investigative work. In a “Face the Nation” interview, she criticized local leaders like California Governor Gavin Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass for failing to control unrest, which led to federal intervention and National Guard deployment.

She emphasized, “We’re not going to let a repeat of 2020 happen,” referring to the Minneapolis Black Lives Matter protests.

Todd Lyons, Acting Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, defended his agents’ use of masks, noting they had received death threats and harassment. He stated, “I’m not going to let my officers go out there and put their lives on the line because people don’t like immigration enforcement.”

Lyons also criticized “sanctuary cities,” claiming they increase the need for surge operations and enforcement tactics.

Ed Obayashi, a California special prosecutor and police practices expert, noted challenges in enforcing SB 627 on federal officers since they follow federal laws. He also emphasized that California’s local and state officers must already display identifiable information and department insignia on their uniforms.

Two major law enforcement organizations in California, the California Statewide Law Enforcement Association (CSLEA) and the Peace Officers Research Association of California (PORAC), have strongly opposed SB 627.

CSLEA opposes the bill, claiming it “undermines officer safety” and ignores practical realities. They argue that requiring officers to be identifiable with no mask jeopardizes their safety and puts them and their families at risk. The bill’s restriction on face coverings could compromise anonymity in essential situations like undercover work and crowd control.

CSLEA criticizes the legislation as a “solution in search of a problem” that would exacerbate staffing challenges in law enforcement.

Similarly, PORAC, representing over 83,000 public safety members, denounced SB 627 as “ill-conceived” and unjustified. PORAC President Brian R. Marvel emphasized that California officers are distinct from federal forces and cannot enforce immigration laws.

He highlighted that the bill would ban crucial personal protective equipment used during high-risk situations, compromising safety for a law that “solves nothing.” PORAC noted that California already has adequate measures for officer identification and asserted that federal attire regulations are beyond state authority.

On X.com, an account named @LAScanner would post purported addresses of ICE operations as they unfolded. The account averaged tens of thousands of views, with posts including alleged hotels where ICE agents would reside. The account was deactivated after the owner issued a formal apology.

Similarly, an unknown man was filmed shouting, “we’re going to dox you,” to the National Guard, who were protecting a federal building. The act of “doxxing” is to reveal someone’s personal information for malicious intent.

Legal Landscape of Face Coverings in Public

Beyond the specific context of law enforcement, the legality of wearing face coverings in public varies across the United States.

The primary statute addressing civilian face concealment in California is Penal Code Section 185 PC. This law prohibits wearing a mask or disguise with the intent to evade discovery during a public offense.

A key point for conviction is the specific intent behind wearing the disguise; simply wearing a mask is not a crime unless it is intended to avoid identification. Violations of PC 185 are misdemeanors punishable by up to 180 days in jail or fines.

Historically, anti-mask laws emerged in response to groups like the Ku Klux Klan and were later applied to various protest movements. The COVID-19 pandemic complicated these laws as mask mandates for health reasons emerged.

Across the U.S., anti-mask laws differ in focus: some ban masks in public, others link them to criminal intent, while some address intimidation.

In August 2024, Nassau County, New York, enacted a “Mask Transparency Act” banning masks in public to combat crime during protests, particularly citing antisemitic incidents. Violators may face up to a year in jail and a $1,000 fine, although exceptions exist for health or religious reasons.

Similar considerations for mask bans were discussed for public transit in New York due to rising crime concerns.

For any inquiries or further information, please contact Jose Cervantes at JoseC.Press@pm.me