Despite their protestations to the contrary, most progressives have become – or perhaps always were – distinctly anti-law enforcement. It is a sentiment some progressive Democratic officeholders share. This stance has won them no support from most Americans, but in some parts of the country, they continue to double down on the unpopular position. Two California Democrats have introduced a bill in the state legislature that would ban law enforcement officers from wearing face masks when performing their duties and would require them to display identification patches.
This is a gift to left-wing activists who have adopted the tactic of doxxing – publicly releasing names, addresses, or other personal information of people they wish to intimidate. It quite possibly could put the safety of police officers, federal agents, and their families in jeopardy.
An Unenforceable Law?
The bill in question is the No Secret Police Act, SB 627, introduced by Democratic California state Sens. Scott Wiener and Jesse Arreguin.
According to Wiener’s official Senate website, the legislation “prohibits law enforcement at all levels from covering their faces while conducting operations in the state of California.” There’s an immediate states’ rights issue with this. Such wording clearly suggests the law would apply to federal agents – obviously, this is aimed at Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents – but states do not have the authority to mandate dress codes for federal personnel. There appears to be no way the Golden State can execute this against federal law enforcement officers who choose to wear face masks.
The proposed bill also “requires officers to be identifiable via their uniform, whether with name or other identifier.”
Certain face masks are exempted, including “medical grade masks (surgical or N95, pursuant to a departmental health policy) and masks designed to protect against exposure to smoke during a state of emergency related to wildfires.” Notably, gas masks – such as those worn by police officers during riot-control operations when tear gas or pepper spray may be deployed – do not appear to be exempt.
Face Masks and Civil Liberties
Interestingly, since the legislation is supposed to support “public safety” by “bolstering public trust in law enforcement,” it exempts Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) teams. If this was about enhancing accountability by not allowing law enforcement agents to conceal their identities – which, from a civil liberties perspective, does indeed have some merit – then why should SWAT teams be exempt? These heavily armed units can forcibly enter private residences in the middle of the night, detain people, or even shoot them in certain circumstances. Why should they remain anonymous while regular officers in the street in broad daylight, fending off a mob of rioters, are compelled to reveal their identity?
So, it is not about ending “the use of secret police tactics,” as Weiner’s press release claims. It’s about hindering the Trump administration’s deportation operations while retaining the option to use “secret police tactics” for state and local authorities in California.
On the other side of the political divide are those who note that this proposed law places no such restrictions upon protesters or rioters. They will continue to be free to wear face masks, preventing authorities from identifying them.
That argument, too, is flawed. Why should governments at any level have the authority to forbid citizens from wearing face masks – or forcing them to wear face masks in times of public health “emergencies,” for that matter?
The argument for banning face masks at public protests is based on a dubious appeal to public safety. Destructive or violent individuals, provocateurs, or dangerous criminals need to be identified. But such claims can be countered with the immortal words of Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
If the government – federal or state – can forbid the wearing of face masks in public, what else might it ban? There is a precedent for such a ban, although one may disagree with it. It is, and has been for some time, illegal to wear any form of face covering on a picket line.
Still, the civil libertarian argument is that citizens absolutely should have the ability to conceal their identities from authorities when taking part in public protests. The aftermath of the Jan. 6, 2021, demonstration in Washington, DC, should serve as a reminder that if the government does not approve of a certain demonstration, it can and sometimes will round up the demonstrators and punish them for exercising their First Amendment rights.
There’s an argument against allowing the agents of any state or federal body to operate with anonymity and, therefore, impunity. This move against the wearing of face masks by law enforcement officers in California, though, is an obvious political move. The Trump administration’s operations against illegal aliens are directly cited as motivation for the bill. But, in California and other states, Democratic lawmakers who continue to demonize law enforcement and impede their operations are increasingly seen as being on the side of lawlessness and chaos. That plays right into President Trump’s hands.
