Officers who cover their faces could be charged with a misdemeanor under California proposal

[BumRushDaShow]

Source: AP

Updated 8:00 PM EDT, June 16, 2025


SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — Local, state, and federal law enforcement officers who cover their faces while conducting official business could face a misdemeanor charge in California under a new proposal announced Monday.

If approved, the bill would require all law enforcement officials to show their faces and be identifiable by their uniform, which should carry their name or other identifier. It would not apply to the National Guard or other troops and it would exempt SWAT teams and officers responding to natural disasters.

State Sen. Scott Wiener, a Democrat representing San Francisco, and State Sen. Jesse Arreguin, a Democrat representing Berkeley and Oakland, said the proposal seeks to boost transparency and public trust in law enforcement. It also looks to protect against people trying to impersonate law enforcement, they said.

“We are seeing more and more law enforcement officers, particularly at the federal level, covering their faces entirely, not identifying themselves at all and, at times, even wearing army fatigues where we can’t tell if these are law enforcement officers or a vigilante militia,” Wiener said. “They are grabbing people off our streets and disappearing people, and it’s terrifying,” he added.

Read more: https://apnews.com/article/california-law-ice-facemasks-immigration-6de057e7b87de9ac192fe00ba33265eb

[DetroitLegalBeagle]

1. This won't be enforceable against Federal law enforcement

State and local absolutely. But Federal officers, not so much. States don't have the ability to regulate or prosecute Federal officers for carrying out their duties. The Supremacy clause guarantees that.

[BumRushDaShow]

2. "The Supremacy clause guarantees that."

The current occupant of the WH along with the sycophant Chief Justice, have essentially shredded the Constitution so there are no "guarantees".

[Gore1FL]

3. They have to follow other local laws, why not this one? nt

[intelpug]

4. Exemption

No, federal agencies do not have to follow local law that conflicts with their purpose, I have seen that often enough through the years when the US Forest Service would burn slash piles out in the woods despite there being a state or local ban on others burning at the time. Caller to sheriffs office, "There's a fire burning up ( any name) creek. '' I can see it from my house, Sheriffs office, "Yes we know about it, It's the Forest Service burning slash piles up there where they had all that logging done last year'' Caller, "But I thought the state and county said we could not burn anything right now this time of the year? Sheriffs office, '' Your right'', The general public is restricted from burning right now but, That's federal on National Forest land so we haven't any say over that

[DetroitLegalBeagle]

5. States have no control over how federal agencies operate

That includes their tactics, uniform, etc. Laws that do not remotely touch how the agency carries out its official duties are fine.

[BumRushDaShow]

7. Except when they go to a favored appelate courts (and even SCOTUS)

This comes to mind - Texas’ floating Rio Grande barrier can stay for now, court rules as larger legal battle persists (July 2024)



And then this -

Court backs Texas over razor wire installed on U.S.-Mexico border (November 2024)



where the above was probably most likely mooted by the-them incoming administration, with a (selective) state allowed to "interfere" with the federal government.

ETA - even when the SCOTUS sided with the feds - Supreme Court rules for Biden administration in Texas border dispute (January 2024)

that was ignored.

[ancianita]

8. Indeed, they do. Thanks for the history.

[JoseBalow]

10. Wouldn't they have to prove who they are in the process?

[republianmushroom]

6. California do it, just do it.

[Moostache]

9. I have news for them...

I live in a concealed carry legal state (East Kansas)...

This state has also affirmed the "right to stand your ground" and has allowed a stone cold murder in a parking lot to affirm that you may shoot anyone that you feel is threatening your person - and do not have to allow them to act first. It is legitimate self-defense to literally kill them first without the requirement to do anything else but state you feared for your life.

IF anyone wearing a face covering of any kind, and failing to have clearly delineated identification (like giant yellow I.C.E. or F.B.I. logos) CLEARLY visible, I will unfortunately have to "kill them graveyard dead" and help "direct their families to where they can collect their remains" as well.

[AntiFascist]

11. There should be state laws requiring them to identify themselves before making arrests...

otherwise, how is one to know that they are legitimate? At some point, agents are going to get shot simply out of self-defense because of this uncertainty.

[DENVERPOPS]

12. I would love to see one of them

walk into a bank, wearing plain clothes and a mask........LOL

[madville]

13. They'll just say they are COVID masks

Several of the ones in the NY comptroller arrest today had on simple surgical masks.

Plus this proposed CA law would be unenforceable against federal agents in the performance of their official duties, that part would be overturned quickly in federal court.