By Christopher Weber
Associated Press
LOS ANGELES — Los Angeles County leaders want to prohibit law enforcement officers from concealing their identities while on duty, a response to recent immigration raids during which some federal agents refused to identify themselves or covered their faces.
The Board of Supervisors on Tuesday voted 4—0, with one abstention, to direct county counsel to draft an ordinance that bars officers, including federal agents, from wearing masks, with limited exceptions such as for medical protection or during undercover operations. Officers would also be required to visibly display identification and agency affiliation while out in public.
| RELATED: The case for removing last names from police uniforms
Since early June, immigration agents have arrested hundreds of people in Southern California, prompting protests against the federal raids and the subsequent deployment of the National Guard and Marines. About half the Guard troops and all the Marines were pulled out of LA in recent weeks.
Supervisor Janice Hahn, who co-authored the motion, said the raids have sparked fear and residents have a right to know who is stopping, questioning or detaining them.
Hahn conceded that it is unclear if the county will be able to enforce the law when it comes to actions by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and other federal agencies. “Ultimately, it might have to be decided by a court,” she said.
Administration officials have defended the practice of officers wearing masks, saying immigration agents have faced harassment as they have gone about their enforcement. Officials said agents are hiding their identities for their safety to avoid things like death threats and doxing, where someone’s personal information is released without their permission on the internet.
“I’m sorry if people are offended by them wearing masks, but I’m not going to let my officers and agents go out there and put their lives on the line, their family on the line because people don’t like what immigration enforcement is,” ICE acting director Todd Lyons said last month.
In the state legislature, a pending measure would ban local, state, and federal police from covering their faces while conducting operations in California. And a similar bill has been introduced into the U.S. Congress by Democratic senators Alex Padilla, of California, and Cory Booker, of New Jersey.
County counsel has 60 days to submit the draft ordinance to the board for approval.
What are your thoughts on law enforcement officers concealing their names and faces?
Police1 readers respond
I speak from the perspective of continuous service since 1983 — from a mid-size city police department, to a very rural sheriff’s office, and now at a state agency. I’ve been there and done that in many ways over the years.
I regret that today, many of our peers find themselves at the tip of a political spear. Wearing a mask — short of actual undercover work — has no place in American law enforcement. Why wouldn’t we identify ourselves? Complaints are part of police work. We serve the public — our communities — made up of the very families we swore to protect. Experience has taught me that when we’re perceived as hiding something, it’s often because we are. What are we hiding?
Good law enforcement requires absolute trust from the community. Without that trust, we are lost. I sometimes think that when we “mask up,” we blind ourselves to who we are and what we stand for. The last time I looked, the ones wearing masks were the Klan, terrorists, bank robbers and various anarchists — not police officers. Those are the people we took an oath to defend our communities against (the Lone Ranger notwithstanding).
It’s true: perception is reality. What our communities see is who we are. I hope they notice that isn’t us.
I’ve reached the point where I believe officers who take part in the recent spectacles aren’t really police — they’re bounty hunters or something similar, dressing and playing the part without the responsibility to the community, the profession or to honor. I see real harm being done to our profession and to the pride of service many of us still hold.
The politicians are using us to deal with a problem that isn’t of our making — a political issue from the start. There will be no good outcome here. Just another chip out of the stone of the Constitution.
- Exactly who is going to arrest these mask-wearing federal agents? Unquestionably will lead to blue on blue confrontations.
- Safety of the officers should be the main concern. What’s next in L.A., no masks for undercover LAPD officers participating in undercover raids? We need to reverse the practice of the criminal elements in society having more “rights” than the law-abiding citizens and officers.
- At one time I would have said NO WAY to face coverings, but as an officer who suffered numerous false liens against my property by an idiot I arrested, I have re-thought my position. I had a legal nightmare getting my problems sorted out, but no real threat to my safety or family’s safety. Unfortunately, that is no longer the case. Yes, to face coverings with proper name strips, patches and ID.
- Under certain circumstances, yes, but in most cases, this is not one of them. If an agent follows the laws, there’s no need to hide their identity.
- I believe if police officers are truly ensuring the law is upheld, the masks become unnecessary. The masks prevent accountability from bad actors, and if we are going to rebuild the respect and trust in the police force, the masks need to go.
- I have no problem with officers concealing their names and faces under circumstances where exposing their identity constitutes a likely or bona fide threat to them and/or their families. There should be limits/concern about masking identity when duty involves performing routine law enforcement actions such as traffic enforcement, domestic disturbance response, routine patrol, corrections, warrant serving (excluding high risk, etc.).
States do not have jurisdiction over federal immigration law. As a retired federal officer, I believe officer safety must remain the top priority. Federal officers and agents face risks every day in the line of duty, and policies that limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement can create additional challenges for both public safety and the safety of law enforcement personnel.
All law enforcement agencies should consider supporting efforts to ensure that individuals in custody who are in the U.S. unlawfully — particularly those with ties to violent gangs — are prioritized for removal through proper legal channels.
At the same time, we must ensure that sworn officers are treated equitably and protected as they carry out their duties. Officers and agents should be easily identifiable in the field through clear markings such as POLICE, FEDERAL AGENT, ICE, HSI, FBI, DEA or DOD, to reduce the risk of misidentification and improve coordination during high-risk situations.
Efforts by state or local governments to override federal immigration law raise serious legal and operational concerns. The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution — found in Article VI — affirms that the Constitution, federal laws and treaties are the supreme law of the land. When conflicts arise between state and federal law, federal law takes precedence. Public officials at all levels should understand and uphold this principle in the interest of lawful, coordinated enforcement and public trust.
- Makes sense. I retire from municipal law enforcement after 27 years of service. I do not remember our officers wearing masks to conceal identity. Paranoia is running rampant in law enforcement these days.
- Being a retired deputy sheriff I would rather not wear your name. With AI, anyone can locate your home address.
- If people — including some elected officials — do not fully support and protect law enforcement officers, then officers must take necessary steps to protect themselves. Otherwise, many may leave the profession, potentially leading to increased instability and risk to public safety.
- Masks are fine if there is a way for the public to particularize officers for purposes of accountability. Most of us have personnel numbers that can replace names for that situation. Agency identifiers are also easy. Doxxing and retaliation are real and significant concerns but so are fears of abusive, unaccountable officers.
- Officers should be allowed to conceal their identities when performing lawful duties if there is an articulable safety concern. In the case of ICE in Los Angeles, it is clear that federal agents face threats such as doxxing and physical harm. A mask ban should not be implemented simply due to political disagreements.
- The idea of requiring officers to unmask during operations is misguided. Many of the individuals they encounter have criminal histories and may seek retaliation. Officers working in high-risk environments should be allowed to wear masks to protect themselves from threats, including health risks.
- This policy could place officers and their families in danger. If the concern were purely procedural, there are legal avenues available. Requiring unmasking appears intended to expose officers to retaliation.
- Officers wear masks for various practical reasons, including undercover assignments and environmental conditions. Given the rise in threats against law enforcement and their families, it is unreasonable to deny them this protection. If officers must unmask, then protesters should also be required to remove facial coverings.
- I’m mixed on this. During my career in law enforcement, I never concealed my identity. But threats against officers have grown, and the justice system often fails to hold offenders accountable. Any measure that enhances officer safety should be considered.
- There are valid safety concerns that justify concealing officers’ identities during operations. Wearing “Police” identifiers on vests or jackets should be sufficient for public awareness. Requiring personal identification in large-scale operations is unnecessary.
- When jurisdictions can guarantee that officers and their families will never be doxxed, threatened or harmed, then the conversation about unmasking can begin.
- I support allowing officers to wear face coverings to protect themselves and their families. Their roles are clearly identified by their gear. The focus should be on ensuring accountability, not endangering lives. Attempting to dictate federal operations at the local level is problematic.
- LA County does not have jurisdiction over federal agencies like ICE.
- Congress should pass legislation allowing federal officers to cover their faces and use ID numbers instead of names during operations, with supervisors confirming law enforcement status on scene.
- Officers should be allowed to wear face coverings. With personal information so easily accessible, the potential for harassment or harm to officers and their families is high. Agencies should consider replacing name tags with ID numbers and limiting public access to personal details.
- If there is to be a law on face coverings, it should apply equally to everyone. Demonstrators should not be permitted to conceal their faces either. While anonymity in law enforcement raises valid accountability concerns, the growing number of threats against officers may justify certain exceptions.
- Attempts to prevent officers from concealing their identities reflect a lack of support for law enforcement. Officers are increasingly targeted by individuals and groups willing to expose them and their families to serious harm.
