By Brad Devereaux
mlive.com
KALAMAZOO, Mich. — In response to community criticism, Kalamazoo Valley Enforcement Team (KVET) officers are no longer allowed to wear masks, the department announced Wednesday, Aug. 6 .
Kalamazoo Department of Public Safety Chief David Boysen said he began reviewing the policies on masking months ago and added language to limit when masks could be used.
| WATCH: What cops want in 2025 — Safer, smarter responses to mental health calls
Now, the department has announced KVET officers will no longer be using masks.
“After hearing the concerns raised by the community, it’s clear that even these additional precautions were not sufficient to maintain community trust,” Boysen said. “On Aug. 5, 2025 , staff were notified that use of masks was suspended effective immediately.”
Officials may revisit the decision in the future, depending on changing circumstances, the chief said.
“At this time, I believe this is the right step to avoid contributing further to public fear or uncertainty,” Boysen said.
People posted videos of masked officers online and shared concerns, asking why officers would need to cover their faces.
People made comments about masked officers at the Monday, Aug. 4 , Kalamazoo City Commission meeting.
“It’s a slippery slope,” resident Joana Babcock said.
“It’s not ICE, but we should be concerned because it feels like soft launching reactions to ICE-esque policing tactics,” she said, joining a group of people holding banners in front of City Hall Monday .
Boysen said KVET investigators operating in undercover roles have been permitted to wear masks in order to protect their identities since the 1990s.
“Recognizing that this practice might raise concerns — particularly in light of the current national discourse around law enforcement and federal agencies like Immigration and Customs Enforcement , I began reviewing our internal policies several months ago,” Boysen said in a news release.
The debate has reached Lansing , where lawmakers are considering a bill to ban use of masks by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers.
Michigan U.S. Sen. Elissa Slotkin introduced a bill with other Democrats that would require Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to unmask in July.
KVET is made up of officers from multiple jurisdictions and primarily targets drugs in the area.
This change only impacts KVET — there hasn’t been a mask policy for other KDPS officers, spokesperson Zach Hamelton said.
Only KVET officers were allowed to wear masks, primarily so they could participate in undercover work without making their identity’s known, he said.
Do you think removing masks will meaningfully improve community trust in law enforcement?
Police1 readers respond
- Unless I am missing something, there is no mention of line officer involvement in this decision. There is also no mention of how many protests, who the groups protesting are, and what the city council may or may not have said. As a retired chief with 44 years of policing, I hope this chief is not abandoning his staff because of fear of having to justify the reasons for some officers to wear masks. I am disappointed that a fellow chief would abandon his officers instead of standing up for them. True leadership is more than this. I may be wrong and there is a lot of information missing, but this is one way to lose the respect of the officers. A better way to handle this would be to address the community at a council meeting and explain the reasons for wearing a mask, explain the policy and support and defend the officers who are allowed to do this.
- Police departments always do a bad job with public relations and do not explain the importance of masks being worn for officer safety in high-risk drug enforcement. By now, not allowing officers to wear masks in these high-risk enforcement operations, it justified to the public that, “see, police never needed this in the first place.” Public relations in police work is a hard job. Buckling to public pressure in these type of situations is neither good for the community nor for drug enforcement and officer safety.
- Removing masks is fine for most officers. That said, anyone in a UC team — whether the actual UC or support team, it is stupid. UC teams must be able to remain confidential. Exposing the identity of your UC team is dangerous, unproductive and reckless. People will complain regardless. This move will embolden criminals, endanger investigators and weaken the efforts to enforce the law. Masks are fine, if there is a way for the public to particularize officers for purposes of accountability. Most of us have personnel numbers that can replace names for that situation. Agency identifiers are also easy. Doxxing and retaliation are real and significant concerns but so are fears of abusive, unaccountable officers.
- This is not contributing to public trust, this is caving to public ignorance. I would tell every citizen of the city that: 1. These Officers go out and risk their lives to protect the public. 2. In retaliation, some criminal elements are targeting these police officers, their families and their homes. 3. If any member of the public is willing to undergo the same risk that these officers (not their families) volunteered to face, then let the citizens also have their faces plastered in the newspaper. This is a chief who is acquiescing to an uninformed opinion that some people hold. My bet would be if you were to educate the public as to why masks are worn, and what the repercussions are, the majority of citizens in his city would support allowing the Officers to wear their masks. Assign them a raid-specific identifying number instead, and let the people who show a concern and a legitimate need to know be able to find out the identity of those officers. Otherwise, put every single cops’ home ownership records in a pool of disguised names in the public database, along with a 50-50 mix of citizens at random whose names are also hidden. There is just no justification for this.
- This should work both ways, if law enforcement can’t wear face masks while on duty, then the same holds for the public. So if a person is committing a crime and is wearing a face mask, the attending officers on scene should have the right to shoot first and ask questions later.
- What’s next? Concerns they have heavy vests and firearms? At some point leadership has to maintain some common sense and consider the risks of their officers! Has there been any documented cases of abuse of wearing masks? Perhaps explaining to your citizens the reason for the masks would be a better option.
- I served on a SWAT team for 25 years. We used masks regularly. At one point, while working overtime on the street, I arrested a driver for DUI. He turned out to be an ex-con. A few days later, he showed up at my house, cornered my wife in our driveway, and threatened her — specifically making threats directed at me. He was accompanied by a member of the Outlaws. Thankfully, she wasn’t harmed. He was later arrested for violating his parole, and because everything was captured on our home security system, he ended up back in prison after the case went to trial. Everyone in law enforcement understands the inherent risks of the job. But why increase those risks by exposing the identities of officers — especially those in specialized units? There’s no reason to make it easier for criminals to target us or our families.
- This is just another ploy to weaken already weak policies enacted by liberal politicians, including police chiefs (who are usually appointed by politicians). It sends a message to officers who are already putting themselves on the line that (bad) politics overrides common sense. This action will most undoubtedly discourage officers from joining high risk undercover operations that eventually save lives. Most “peaceful” protesters cover their faces while “peacefully” protesting, in the name of expressing their First Amendment rights. So, my question is, will this same policy or law be extended to those who violate innocent, working citizens, loot and/or burn property, while wearing face coverings?
- Being that this is a task force and an ancillary role, officers will just quit the task force and go back to their regular duties if they fear for their safety and the safety of their families. Good luck to the chief and department when they can’t field a task force thanks to their pandering.
- I think that it will improve community trust and probably make officers safer. There are already claims in our area of masked people claiming to be ICE officers with no ID and actions that appear to be more criminal than law enforcement. There are also claims of people preparing to meet masked unidentified people who claim to be law enforcement at gun point, until their identities are confirmed. This is creating a perfect storm. I am coming at this with a 40-year career under my belt.
Police1 readers are weighing in on the broader issue of banning masked officers — see what they’re saying and share your opinion by clicking here.
Want more Kalamazoo -area news? Bookmark MLive’s local Kalamazoo news page.
©2025 Advance Local Media LLC. Visit mlive.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.
