The legislation’s proponent has expressed concern about the intimidating presence of cloaked officials in our neighborhoods, apprehending individuals without restraint. The Trump administration, however, has declared noncompliance with California’s latest statute forbidding law enforcement personnel from donning masks, a law which becomes operational in the ensuing year. Over the latest stretch of time, shielded immigration officials have seized individuals from legal buildings, their vehicles, open spaces, and professional environments.
On the date September 20, the Governor of California, a state led by the Democratic party with Gavin Newsom at its helm, enacted into law the ‘No Secret Police Act’. This legislation restricts, with a few specific exceptions, local, state, and federal law enforcement officers from employing facial concealing accessories, a category inclusive of, but not limited to, balaclavas, tactical masks, gators or ski masks, during the execution of their responsibilities.
However, this ruling does not encompass medical masks utilized explicitly to impede the spread of infectious diseases. Any breach of this law counts as a misdemeanor and makes the officer in question accountable to the victim for a penalty not falling below the mark of $10,000.
California stands as the pioneer state to institute such a ban, but there have been echoes of analogous legislation proposed in the states of Illinois and New York, alongside its introduction on a national scale. Senator of the state of California, Scott Wiener (D), the individual responsible for introducing the bill, reasserted his stance on behalf of his constituents in a formal communication, stating their collective disapproval of masked officials taking individuals into custody without oversight.
Wiener (D) expanded his view on the expanding dominance of this current regime, stating, ‘It permeates every facet of ordinary existence — instilling fear in individuals in their homes, workplaces, educational institutions, shopping centers, and health care facilities — California will maintain its stance in support of the judicial process and essential liberties.’ The Trump administration, however, has clearly communicated its rejection of this legislation.
Tricia McLaughlin, acting in the capacity of Assistant Secretary for the Department of Homeland Security, has stipulated, via a public post, a directive to all federal agencies clarifying that the new statute carries no weight over their modus operandi, maintaining that, ‘Our officers will persist in safeguarding their identities.’
According to Essayli’s perspective, a certain federal sentiment deems California to have no authority over the operations of the federal government. ‘If Governor Newsom seeks to impose regulation on our officers, his appeal needs to be directed towards the Congress,’ Essayli explained.
A challenge to the law by the federal government is anticipated. In a widely circulated public commentary piece, Erwin Chemerinsky, the dean of the School of Law at the University of California, Berkeley, put forth arguments supporting the constitutional validity of the legislation.
Chemerinsky posits that state and local governments can legally impose that federal workers adhere to general laws as long as doing so doesn’t significantly interfere with their official duties. He further elaborated his point with a condemnation of how the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents’ use of masks incites kidnapping-like fear.
In his words, ‘The wearing of masks by ICE agents is perceived as a disturbing reminder of abduction threats. It does nothing to further the cause of law enforcement.’ So stands today’s state of affairs where the legal landscape is rapidly shifting and the tension between state and federal forces is increasing.
At a time when law enforcement tactics are under more scrutiny than ever, this policy aims to ensure officers observing their duties are easily identifiable, increasing transparency and trust in local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies.
Many believe that clarity and open communication should be the crux of law enforcement interaction with the community, and this legislation is a step in that direction. It reinforces the idea that law enforcement is, foremost, a part of our community – working to protect and serve all citizens.
A major debate lies at the center of this confrontation between the California state government and the federal government, and it is unclear how this will ultimately be resolved. The outcome of this conflict could have far-reaching implications for the relationship between state rights and federal authority in the United States.
The post California’s ‘No Secret Police Act’ Against Masked Law Enforcement Supports Transparency appeared first on Real News Now.
About Author
