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.
What do you think? Email editor@police1.com.
Police1 readers respond
Context matters: one-size-fits-all doesn’t work
Pro-mandate: I don’t personally like when officers wear masks while on duty — except in very specific instances. We wear a name tag and a star for a reason: to be identifiable. I worry that using a mask as a concealment tactic may unintentionally reinforce negative perceptions of the police, while offering limited protection from external threats such as doxxing. To be clear, my primary concern is with the use of masks to obscure identity, not for legitimate safety or health purposes.
Anti-mandate: That said, I also think this is the kind of reaction legislators sometimes have in response to public criticism. There are other ways to address the issue that would be just as effective without introducing new legislation. I’m generally cautious about laws like this because lawmakers often do not fully consider the operational realities of police work.
For example: What happens when an officer needs to wear a mask to reduce the risk of contagion while guarding a sick prisoner — particularly with concerns about bringing illness home to their families? What about protecting against contamination at crime scenes or during biohazard incidents? Or during death investigations? Or while responding to arson scenes where inhaling fumes is a risk?
And finally, context matters. This issue may have originated in California, but I’m from Chicago. Our winters are harsh enough that face coverings become a practical necessity — even though scarves are discouraged for safety reasons.
This bill ignores the demands of real police work
This bill appears to be based on emotion rather than practical, logical consideration of its application. The Police1 article already outlined existing departmental policies regarding officer identification and attire.
Policies and requirements are in place governing the use of riot gear, cold weather clothing to protect officers from the elements, and PPE for responding to WMD emergencies, fires and toxic spills. There are also standards requiring face coverings during crime scene investigations to prevent contamination from saliva or facial hair by detectives, crime scene investigators and other personnel on scene for investigative or authorized purposes.
Criminalizing law enforcement’s response, attire, tools and situational needs — without accounting for the full scope of exceptions — is unreasonable. Officers may need to cover their faces in numerous unforeseen situations. How are dive team members on Search and Rescue supposed to conduct water rescues? Would this apply to pilots of police helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft whose faces are obscured by necessary flight gear and radio equipment? What about pulling on a face covering to prevent scratches while searching through dense brush, responding to a bee swarm, or avoiding insects swarming a carcass that must be investigated or recovered? It’s difficult to see how this bill is viable, as it seeks to criminalize measures often required for effective job performance, self-preservation and public service.
Contrary to Senator Scott Wiener’s assertion through the bill’s language, officers are not covering their faces for nefarious reasons, nor are they unidentified.
Law enforcement is among the most transparent professions in the United States. We operate under public scrutiny daily. Officers are highly visible — from the marked vehicles we drive to the uniforms we wear to the public locations where we perform our duties. As a result, we receive some of the most intense scrutiny regarding how we do our jobs. As administrators, we work to protect and support the brave personnel who step forward to serve the public while also ensuring our departments provide exemplary service, even under the most challenging conditions.
It would be refreshing if our state legislators focused their passionate energy and efforts on issues that truly require accountability and intervention.
Criminals get cover, cops get handcuffed by law
This law is yet another example of how out of touch lawmakers are with reality. Police should always be one step ahead and afforded every advantage possible. Advocacy should focus on protecting both law enforcement and the public by enacting legislation that makes it illegal for anyone to be masked in public. Violent protesters are far less likely to commit crimes if they can’t conceal their identities.
Before COVID, New York had a long-standing penal law that prohibited public masking — with an appropriate exemption for police. That’s how it should be. There are already systems in place to report and investigate officer misconduct. But in the absence of misconduct, officers must be allowed to use every tactic necessary to stay safe and do their job.
It’s ironic — lawmakers didn’t seem to mind when masked agitators were burning cities, destroying property and assaulting officers and civilians. But now, when officers wear masks to protect themselves in the line of duty, that’s suddenly a problem? And the solution is to outlaw it — but only for police, not criminals?
It’s mind-blowing how disconnected from reality lawmakers have become. What’s next — arming criminals while disarming police? Common sense just isn’t common anymore.
Protecting officers’ identities protects their families
I’ve been a cop for 34 years and I’m still on the job. I’ve worked in both large cities and rural areas. There are times when, no, an officer shouldn’t be covering their face — like during routine patrol or day-to-day duties. But in some situations, absolutely, they should.
There’s a reason we sometimes remove our name tag and display only a badge number. When dealing with large crowds, riots and groups like Antifa, officers are targeted. These individuals get our names, look us up and harass our families. That is completely unacceptable.
Many in these crowds cover their own faces so they can’t be identified. If California is going to make it illegal for cops to protect themselves and their families, then it should also be illegal for anyone at a large public event to cover their face. If you’re going to make a law, make one that applies to everyone — not just cops.
An officer safety issue
I think this bill is an officer safety issue, especially with the number of gang members in California. If you believe gang members don’t remember your face from a contact and don’t recognize you when you’re at the mall or a restaurant with your family, you’re sadly mistaken. Once an officer is in a special assignment or an undercover role, serving a search warrant, they should be able to cover their face if they choose to. Since the COVID-19 pandemic, everybody and their mother covers their face when entering businesses, and some end up committing crimes and can’t be identified. Why hasn’t a law been passed for that? Well, it doesn’t fit the narrative. SB 627 is ridiculous and does not create transparency.
| READ NEXT: The case for removing last names from police uniforms
