Can state make officers show their faces during protests? Experts appear doubtful
'We do not need secret police in California,' state Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, said at a news conference on the steps of City Hall announcing the introduction of Senate Bill 627.
'It's important that we know who are carrying out law enforcement operations,' said the bill's co-author, Sen. Jesse Arreguin, D-Berkeley, chairman of the Senate Public Safety Committee. 'People are afraid. Families are being torn apart.'
Under the measure, which would take effect next year, a masked officer could be charged with a misdemeanor, punishable by a jail sentence and a fine. The only exemptions would be for medical masks, masks needed to protect against smoke from wildfires and other dangerous conditions, and police emergency squads known as Special Weapons and Tactics teams, or SWAT.
SB627 would also require officers to wear a name or badge on their uniform to identify them to the public. It would not prohibit them from wearing visors that left their faces visible. And it would apply only to law enforcement officers, and not to the National Guard troops that President Donald Trump has sent to the streets in Los Angeles while their deployment is challenged in court.
Asked whether the state could regulate the clothing or conduct of federal officers, Wiener cited court rulings upholding state and local 'sanctuary' policies that prohibit federal immigration agents from requiring police and jail officials in California to hold undocumented immigrants in custody for deportation. But some law professors were skeptical about applying a state mask ban to U.S. government officers.
'Generally the state cannot dictate how federal law enforcement operates,' said Laurie Levenson, a criminal law professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles and a former federal prosecutor.
'The state can't tell the feds what to do,' said Robert Weisberg, a Stanford law professor and co-director of the school's Criminal Justice Center.
Citing violence in some of the immigration protests in Los Angeles, Trump declared federal control of the California National Guard last week and sent 8,000 guard troops and 700 U.S. Marines into the city streets.
In a lawsuit by the state, U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer ruled Thursday that the president had acted illegally by failing to show that the takeover was needed for public safety and failing to consult with Gov. Gavin Newsom. But Breyer's order to remove the National Guard troops was quickly blocked by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which has scheduled a hearing on Tuesday.
Wiener said the federal government's actions in California 'have created an atmosphere of profound terror.' He said federal officers have covered their faces, badges and names, and some have worn 'police' tags on their jackets, impersonating local officers. In addition to Los Angeles, Wiener said, the raids have been conducted in San Francisco, San Diego and Concord.
There was no immediate comment on SB627 from organizations representing local police. But they have said officers are already required to wear badges and have questioned the need for further requirements.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
10 minutes ago
- USA Today
Trump is a bully. He's using the National Guard to conquer DC as a test run.
The District of Columbia should be allowed statehood, not forced to endure deployment of the National Guard to stop an imagined crime wave. President Donald Trump's activation of the National Guard in Washington, DC, has less to do with an imagined 'out of control' crime wave and more to do with conquest. It is more misguided bullying by the president. To facilitate this racialized farce, he dehumanized the capital district's citizens by labeling them 'bloodthirsty criminals' and 'roving mobs of wild youth.' Let there be no mistake: This rhetoric portends violence against Black, Brown and poor citizens and complete disdain for the unhoused. This action and whatever else might follow is deeply personal to the 700,000 people who call the District of Columbia home and who are tired of the meddling from the administration and Capitol Hill politicians who treat our city like a play toy, likely because of our history as a majority Black jurisdiction. Home to a federal government that offers well-paying positions, Washington has attracted Black professionals and blue-collar workers, creating one of the largest Black middle-class populations in the country. We've innovated with affordable housing, invested flush tax revenue in education and implemented a slew of smart labor and justice policies. There's a real city beyond what the tourists know Many Americans don't know this story. They think Washington starts and ends with memorials, museums and monuments. The residential and commercial city is often invisible as a thriving metropolis in its own right, with a deep history and a vibrant culture. Share your opinion: In the wake of Trump's federal DC takeover, are you worried about crime? Tell us. | Opinion Forum Not only have we outshined many of our peer cities, but states, too. DC has a population comparable to Vermont, Alaska and North Dakota, but a budget larger than Arizona's. Residents pay the equivalent of state taxes. DC balances its budget every year, manages a highly functioning mass transit system and employs thousands in jobs that DC residents do with great pride. Still, the way congressional politicians treat us would have our red state friends up in arms if it were done to them. This summer, as the result of a so-called error, Congress withheld more than $1 billion from our approved budget, and that money remains out of our reach − instead of providing the services that our citizens voted and paid for. Opinion: Trump ushers in new DC tourist event − 'A Live Re-creation of Authoritarianism!' The Republican budget proposal for the next fiscal year includes all kinds of culture war initiatives in an attempt to impose conservative values on the more sensible and moderate residents of DC. We're tired of being the punching bag for politicians who wouldn't last a week living under the policies they impose on us. It's as dishonest as it is insulting. Opinion alerts: Get columns from your favorite columnists + expert analysis on top issues, delivered straight to your device through the USA TODAY app. Don't have the app? Download it for free from your app store. So much of what this administration and Congress do is informed by their stated orthodoxy around local control and 'rights.' That somehow doesn't apply to us. DC needs statehood, not a federal takeover Fortunately, the president and Congress can't truly 'take over' Washington without ending home rule, which would be difficult to do with the Senate filibuster blocking them. But the president can fearmonger through state-sanctioned violence. And he can use Washington as the test run for the federal takeover of Black and Brown cities daring to oppose this administration's death-dealing politics. We will not accept death. Washington, DC, has proved our right to self-governance and, indeed, statehood. Instead of forcing us to manage a manufactured crisis, elected officials who believe in democracy in earnest should let DC leaders spend our energy on building a more successful and safe city that must become the 51st state. William H. Lamar IV is the pastor at the Metropolitan AME Church in Washington, DC. You can read diverse opinions from our USA TODAY columnists and other writers on the Opinion front page, on X, formerly Twitter, @usatodayopinion and in our Opinion newsletter.
Newsweek
11 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Trump Is Deploying the National Guard to D.C.—Power Grab or Public Safety? Newsweek Writers Debate
President Donald Trump announced he would deploy the National Guard to Washington, D.C., and assume control of the city's police force. Was this announcement a sign of creeping authoritarianism? A legitimate measure to combat crime in the nation's capital city? Or just a publicity stunt? Newsweek contributors David Faris and Mark Davis debate: David Faris: Deploying the National Guard to Washington D.C. is an unconscionable abuse of federal power and another worrisome signpost on our road to autocracy. Using the military to bring big, blue cities to heel, exactly as "alarmists" predicted during the 2024 campaign, isn't about a crisis in D.C.—violent crime is actually at a 30-year low. President Trump is, once again, testing the limits of his power, hoping to intimidate other cities into submission to his every vengeful whim by making the once unimaginable—an American tyrant ordering a military occupation of our own capital—a terrifying reality. Mark Davis: In another masterstroke of messaging and practicality, President Trump has taken aim at crime in America's capital city, vowing to use the resources under his control to "make Washington safe again." No big city is ever safe enough, and there are cities with worse crime problems than D.C., but this is the city where Trump lives, as do countless politicians and media types who will criticize him while quietly enjoying a city with less violent crime. Democratic mayors and governors have done too little; Trump will act, and residents of every political stripe will benefit. Photo-illustration by Newsweek/Associated Press Faris: There is nothing practical about deploying an expensive military force when crime is already in freefall. If President Trump actually cared about the city he escapes every weekend to go golfing, he would empower it with statehood or voting representation in Congress, not occupy it with troops. Davis: Washington residents—and I know plenty—may beg to differ on the "crime in freefall" observation. Last year provided a momentary breather by some measures, but this decade's crime numbers have spiked over the 2010s. Whatever current levels are, they will decrease with Trump's D.C. strategy, a goal that should be appreciated by all. Faris: I doubt that even one in ten Washingtonians would approve of deploying the military to combat a fabricated crime crisis. Trump did not consult with residents and doesn't care what they think. This is about dictatorial pageantry, a strongman applying the boot to places he believes are full of domestic enemies. Davis: My kingdom for a reliable flash poll, which I believe would show surprising support. But even if D.C. is filed with voters with a taste for high-crime Democratic governance as in Chicago, Philadelphia, Baltimore, and elsewhere, that doesn't mean Trump has to agree. And perhaps viewing murderers and carjackers as domestic enemies will actually dissuade those behaviors. Faris: It's telling that the cities Republicans bring up in these conversations are always in blue states, as if there aren't problems in Dallas or St. Louis, both of which are ruled by Republican-dominated state governments and policies. Why isn't the president threatening to send the National Guard to these cities? Davis: There are problems in every large city. The worst are the ones saddled with unchecked Democratic governance. I'm sure the president would love to send the National Guard into Chicago, but cities in both blue and red states are not under his direct authority. Washington is, and its residents are about to benefit from it. Faris: The American far right fears and loathes cities, and President Trump has long publicly fantasized about unleashing the military on them. A sanitized, terrorized capital city, with uniformed soldiers brandishing assault rifles on street corners, has been a hallmark of every authoritarian society I've visited. The militarization of Washington will not have any lasting effects on violent crime. But it's not intended to. It will only clarify President Trump's contempt for American democracy and his endless need to humiliate people he sees not as equal citizens but as disloyal subjects. Our depressing slide into sclerotic autocracy continues. Davis: In the final analysis, this comes down to whether safer streets are good. It is hard to fathom an argument to the contrary. The objections seem ginned up from the usual complaint that "Trump wants it, so it's bad." Critics tried that with borders and it failed. They said tariffs would sink us into depression. Hasn't happened, and it won't. Is there an element of political theater to this D.C. crime strategy? Sure, but it's also sound policy of the type that shows a president in touch with a concern real people have, which is served him well, and also the nation. David Faris is a professor of political science at Roosevelt University and the author of It's Time to Fight Dirty: How Democrats Can Build a Lasting Majority in American Politics. His writing has appeared in Slate, The Week, The Washington Post, The New Republic, Washington Monthly, and more. You can find him on Twitter @davidmfaris and Bluesky @ Mark Davis is a syndicated talk show host for the Salem Media Group on 660AM The Answer in Dallas-Ft. Worth, and a columnist for the Dallas Morning News and Townhall. The views expressed in this article are the writers' own.
CNN
11 minutes ago
- CNN
DC Mayor Bowser's stance on Trump's takeover seems to part from other Democrats
After Donald Trump won the presidential election, Washington, D.C., Mayor Muriel Bowser flew to Trump's Mar-a-Lago estate to see him. When Republicans pressured her over the giant 'Black Lives Matter' lettering she installed in front of the White House during Trump's first term, Bowser agreed to remove it. Her reasoning: The city had bigger fish to fry, particularly on managing the federal job cuts Trump has enacted this year. Now, as Trump federalizes the police in the capital and deploys the National Guard, Bowser faces perhaps the biggest test to date of her leadership and her ability to navigate the White House. Bowser's comments in response to the announcement illustrate how she's often trying to communicate multiple messages at one time. Describing Trump's executive action as 'unsettling and unprecedented,' Bowser on Monday blasted the city's lack of full autonomy without personalizing that frustration or criticizing Trump directly. 'I can't say that given some of the rhetoric of the past that we're totally surprised,' she said. Minutes later, she suggested the federal intervention may work to the city's benefit and told reporters she didn't have the legal authority to stop Trump's plans. 'The fact that we have more law enforcement and presence in neighborhoods, that may be positive,' said Bowser. By comparison, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries said Trump has no credibility in the law and order space. 'The crime scene in D.C. most damaging to everyday Americans is at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave,' Jeffries posted, referencing the address of the White House. Other Democrats like Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, who dealt with Trump's deployment of the National Guard in her own city, also dismissed the president's actions. 'To me, it just all boiled down to being a stunt and I just don't think you should use our troops for political stunts,' said Bass. Christina Henderson, a member of the DC council, suggested she empathized with the difficult balance Bowser is trying to strike. She noted that only in 1973 did Congress allow DC residents to elect a mayor, council members and neighborhood commissioners, but prohibited the council from enacting certain laws and the city from having voting members in the US House or Senate. 'You do not want to be the mayor that loses home rule and that there is no mayor after you,' Henderson said. Asked if she planned to push back harder in the wake of an unprecedented undermining of her authority, Bowser said Monday, 'My tenor will be appropriate for what I think is important for the district and what's important for the district is that we can take care of our citizens.' But Bowser struck a stronger tone during a virtual conversation with community leaders on Tuesday. Asked what residents can do, Bowser said, 'This is a time where community needs to jump in and we all need to, to do what we can in our space, in our lane, to protect our city and to protect our autonomy, to protect our Home Rule, and get to the other side of this guy, and make sure we elect a Democratic House so that we have a backstop to this authoritarian push.' Veteran city reporter Tom Sherwood, a political analyst for DC public radio station WAMU, says Bowser is trying to be strategic. 'I believe that the mayor has done all she can do to tend to the weather-vane attitude of President Trump,' Sherwood said. 'The image from the president is that the district is a liberal, mostly Black city that doesn't care about fighting crime, and so that's left the mayor and the DC Council as prime targets for him.' Anti-Trump sentiment is fierce in activist spaces across the city, which former Vice President Kamala Harris won last year with 90% of the vote. At a demonstration this week, the Free DC project, a movement grounded in demanding DC statehood, denounced the Trump administration's actions. Organizers accused Trump of trying to provoke violence and compared immigration arrests to kidnappings. 'Black Washingtonians have long recognized that community violence cannot be solved through state violence,' said Free DC's organizing director Nee Nee Taylor, questioning the effectiveness of policing over investing in social programs to uplift the most vulnerable. 'We will not be idle as oppressors' structures try to harm our communities and take power,' she added. When asked if she was disappointed Bowser was not mirroring the intense pushback as seen and heard from community members on city streets, Taylor said she thinks the mayor is doing all she can and that she is occupying a different role. 'I think she's standing up to the best of her ability, being that DC is not a state,' Taylor said.
