California Senate Bill 627, also known as the “No Secret Police Act,” seeks to prohibit officers from covering their faces while on duty and requires all law enforcement personnel operating in the state to display a visible name or ID number. The bill, authored by Senators Scott Wiener and Jesse Arreguín, was introduced in the wake of federal immigration raids involving masked agents.
| RELATED: Officers who cover their faces could be charged with misdemeanor under Calif. proposal
The bill specifies:
(a) A law enforcement officer shall not wear any mask or personal disguise while interacting with the public in the performance of their duties, except for medical grade masks that are surgical or N95 respirators designed to prevent the transmission of airborne diseases and masks designed to protect against exposure to smoke during a state of emergency related to wildfires.
(b) A violation of this section shall be punishable as a misdemeanor.
(c) (1) It is the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation to ensure that Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) team officers can utilize gear necessary to protect their faces from physical harm while they perform their SWAT responsibilities.
(2) It is the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation to require law enforcement officers to include their name or badge number on their uniforms.
(d) For the purposes of this section, “law enforcement officer” means any officer of a local, state, or federal law enforcement agency, or any person acting on behalf of a local, state, or federal law enforcement agency.
(e) The provisions of this section are severable. If any provision of this section or its application is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application.
“Law enforcement officers are public servants and people should be able to see their faces, see who they are, know who they are. Otherwise, there is no transparency and no accountability,” Wiener said when introducing the bill. But the Peace Officers Research Association of California (PORAC), which represents more than 83,000 members statewide, strongly opposes the legislation, calling it both dangerous and unnecessary.
“SB 627 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 robust oversight measures to ensure that officers can be identified and held responsible for their actions, including language in our penal code which requires uniformed officers to wear a badge, nameplate or other device that clearly displays their ID number or name,” PORAC President Brian Marvel said in a statement released by PORAC. He emphasized that California already requires officers to wear identifying information and dismissed the bill as a misguided response to actions by federal agents: “California’s local law enforcement officers are not ICE … We are a part of California’s communities, which we are proud to serve and call home.”
In this “State Your Case,” Jim Dudley and Chief Joel Shults debate whether SB 627 promotes accountability or endangers frontline officers. Email your thoughts on this topic to editor@police1.com.
| WHAT DO YOU THINK? Click here to answer our reader poll.
The ground rules: As in an actual debate, the pro and con sides are assigned randomly as an exercise in critical thinking and analyzing problems from different perspectives.
Our debaters: Jim Dudley, a 32-year veteran of the San Francisco Police Department where he retired as deputy chief of the Patrol Bureau, and Chief Joel Shults, EdD, who retired as chief of police in Colorado.
Jim Dudley: The attempt to legislate against law enforcement officers wearing masks during the course of duty is absurd. There are several valid reasons why officers need to protect their identities and their families. There is a long history of documented personal attacks on LEOs by suspects, third parties and criminal organizations. There have been incidents where attacks have occurred off duty, at officers’ homes, on their personal vehicles and even virtually through cyberattacks.
Officers have been doxxed — attacked online with threats, “swatted” and exposed on social media websites — encouraging others to do them harm. Officers should have the right to protect their identities in discretionary situations, including gang enforcement, search warrants and high-profile protests.
Joel Shults: Well, Jim, you won the coin toss on this one! Before I make a case in favor of a masking ban, let me remind our readers that the purpose of debate is to explore all sides of a given proposition.
From a very practical standpoint, the answer to “What were they thinking?” is important to know when legislators propose regulation on things they don’t seem to know anything about. We can only respond if we can answer that question in order to make our case.
So, what are they thinking?
They might be thinking that when they imposed masks on law enforcement officers five years ago, there was a psychological suspicion of officers during contacts that damaged police-community relations and trust.
The anti-maskers may strongly dislike the imagery of third-world, covered faces of soldiers and police in violent regimes — for the same reason that the kneeling, hands-on-your-head arrest position signals an execution is coming in those despotic regimes, and why agencies wisely started labeling their armored personnel carriers more palatably — and accurately — as rescue vehicles.
Maybe they’re thinking that if campuses are being asked to unmask their protestors, it’s hypocritical to allow law enforcement to wear theirs.
Maybe they’re thinking that a masked imposter could blend into a multi-agency event response and wreak havoc disguised as a police officer.
Maybe.
Jim Dudley: And yet, so many protesters mask up when taking part in not-so-peaceful and outright violent demonstrations. Groups like Antifa do it to conceal their identities and avoid being held accountable as they commit crimes of vandalism, theft, arson, graffiti, assault and other acts to emphasize their “message.”
There is already a process in place for citizens to lodge complaints against law enforcement officers at an incident. Officers can be identified and investigated. The legislators behind this proposal to unmask police are not merely promoting transparency — this is another assault on the profession. The bill’s intent opens the door to personal attacks on officers and their families.
A recent example of how identity information can be weaponized occurred when a blogger published the exact addresses of where Immigration Enforcement officers were staying during operations, along with a map of where those operations were to occur. The blogger’s goal was clear: to jeopardize officers by encouraging preemptive or retaliatory actions — not in response to misconduct, but to interfere with lawful duties.
A group reportedly traced to Germany went further, creating a public database of ICE officers to intimidate them.
If the primary goal of this proposal is to prevent LEOs from wearing masks, perhaps a more balanced solution would be to identify a squad by number and hold the immediate supervisor accountable for the actions of the squad. Any concerns about conduct could then be addressed through follow-up internal investigation — allowing for legitimate complaints without exposing individual officers to personal attacks or harassment.
Joel Shults: But that’s exactly it — masking is often associated with nefarious or criminal activity, like the masked protesters we’ve seen at violent demonstrations. And you’re right — even when officers wear masks, they’re still identifiable. There’s little real protection. Officers can be recognized by their take-home vehicles parked outside their homes, a blue line flag, or even a quick public records search.
I’d also argue that simply seeing a face — as opposed to a name tag, which is a separate debate not addressed by this bill — doesn’t necessarily equate to meaningful identification. I remember serving as a reserve officer while also teaching college. One Monday, a student excitedly told me about a weekend incident where police responded. I had been one of those officers. That student, who saw me in class three times a week, didn’t recognize my face at the scene. I think that’s true for many people — they just don’t register faces in those moments.
Officers assigned to crowd control should absolutely wear proper safety gear — helmets with affixed clear face shields or breathing apparatus. Claiming that a bandana offers meaningful protection from tear gas or thrown bottles of urine is a weak defense. And while I would never advocate sacrificing safety equipment for optics, unfortunately that’s a decision some weak-kneed leaders make — worrying more about how things look than whether officers are protected. Still, the optics of ragtag face coverings can undermine public trust, even among those typically supportive of law enforcement.
Whether this issue warrants legislation is another debate. But there are at least some reasonably rational arguments for the rule.
Jim Dudley: I hear you, Joel — you make a clinical argument. But if we’re sharing personal stories, I can recount several situations where officers felt threatened off duty enough to request protection at their homes. I recall one instance when the wife of an officer called in the middle of the night after receiving repeated calls to their home with specific, graphic threats and details about their house, vehicles, children and their schools.
These attacks don’t “just come with the job” — they are outrageous and should be prevented. I hope that Wiener and Arreguín will consider legislation that protects law enforcement officers and their families from this kind of exposure, instead of pushing this nonsense.
Joel Shults: If the masks truly make a difference in officer safety — and how do we even study that? — I could concede on all points. But I don’t believe they reduce the existing risks of off-duty assaults you’ve described, especially when weighed against the growing anti-law enforcement sentiment that may pose a greater threat.
I do see some merit in disallowing homemade masks for the reasons I’ve stated. However, I can join you in rejecting this particular proposal on the grounds that policy should be made by local leaders who understand local needs and sentiment — not dictated from Sacramento, of all places. I think we can agree on that.
| READ NEXT: The case for removing last names from police uniforms
