SEATTLE, Wash. — Seattle Mayor Bruce Harrell has introduced a new ordinance that would ban law enforcement officers from wearing face coverings while performing enforcement duties, KOMO reported.
Announced Oct. 29, the proposed ordinance would require local, state and federal officers operating in the city to display visible identification, including agency emblems and badges. It specifically targets face-concealing items such as balaclavas, tactical masks, ski masks and similar gear, according to the report. Medical masks and respirators for health or safety reasons are exempt.
STAYING ALERT: What officers need to improve situational awareness
If approved, Seattle would become the first city in Washington, and one of the first major cities in the U.S., to enact such a law, according to the report. The state of California passed a similar ban.
“Federal law enforcement officials operating in Seattle are not above the laws of our city…” Mayor Harrell said in a statement. “This ordinance is a concrete step we can take to uphold our local values and protect our immigrant and refugee communities from these unjust actions.”
Under the proposed ordinance, violations could result in a $5,000 civil fine. The Office for Civil Rights would oversee enforcement, according to the report.
Seattle Police Chief Shon Barnes voiced support for the initiative, noting that all SPD officers will be clearly identifiable when responding to emergency calls.
“They will show up ready to serve the public with their faces uncovered and their SPD badge and name proudly displayed,” Barnes said.
Additionally, the city is crafting a separate ordinance to block federal immigration enforcement operations from staging on city-owned property, including public lots and facilities. Similar policies have been implemented in cities like Chicago to restrict how and where federal agents operate.
The practice of states and municipalities attempting to force federal law enforcement to abide by local restrictions has not yet been tested in court. Government officials have asserted that to do so would violate the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause.
Could policies banning face coverings set a precedent for further restrictions on officer tactics?
