Modesto police defend mask ordinance enforcement after June 14 protests; CPRB forms ad hoc to review code

Chief Brandon Gillespie of the Modesto Police Department told the Modesto Community Police Review Board on July 16 that the departments response to the June 14 protests prioritized public safety and enforcement of a municipal ordinance that bans face coverings intended to conceal identity and other items.

Gillespie said the department relied on Modesto Municipal Code section 4-23.02 and on department policies known internally as 4-66 and 4-12 when planning and carrying out enforcement. "The First Amendment of the Constitution guarantees the right of the people to peacefully assemble," Gillespie told the board, adding that local governments may adopt reasonable time, place and manner restrictions for public safety.

Why it matters: The June 14 events drew thousands by some estimates, merged multiple demonstrations in the downtown area and prompted heavy police deployment. Community members said arrests and tactics used that day damaged trust and disproportionately targeted some protesters; police contend the ordinance and tactics helped prevent violence and property damage.

Most important facts - Gillespie said the city ordinance (4-23.02) was first adopted in 2019 and amended in 2021 to prohibit masks intended to conceal identity and other items such as metal containers, gas masks, helmets, laser pointers, umbrellas, riot gear and load-bearing vests. - The department reported 5 arrests for violating the mask subsection of the municipal code, 1 arrest for obstructing officers, 1 citation for a noise violation, 18 traffic citations (mostly for unsafe behavior) and 5 vehicle tows (two for reckless driving). Photographs shown by the department were described as depicting individuals in face coverings intended to conceal identity. - Gillespie said enforcement included marked and unmarked teams, plainclothes officers, a real-time crime center using city cameras, an airplane (SkyOne) and UAVs. He described arrests as strategic and aimed at reducing crowd escalation.

Supporting details and chronology Gillespie told the board the department had advance social-media intelligence showing high interest in at least two demonstrations and said local businesses and residents had expressed concern after high-profile unrest in other cities. He described a timeline on June 14: a smaller "ice out" protest at 10 a.m. with an estimated 100—0 attendees and a larger No Kings event near Griselda Park with an estimated 2,000—,000 attendees (Gillespie said he had also seen higher estimates).

He said the department used multiple forms of notice (signs, PA announcements in English and Spanish and personal warnings), deployed diverse teams (traffic, uniformed contact, uniformed arrest teams in unmarked vehicles) and used a bomb-detection dog to sweep sites before events. Gillespie said the arrests were not "grab" operations but were preceded by warnings and conducted to remove arrestees from crowd focal points to avoid escalation.

Gillespie acknowledged operational problems after the event: two cameras' feeds froze due to cellular-network overload, a social-media template post omitted the mask ordinance text, and some arrest teams did not immediately tell arrestees the specific charges. He said the department will increase signage (including at Tenth Street Plaza), improve bi-directional real-time communications between the real-time crime center and field personnel, and develop protest-group contacts to reduce friction at future demonstrations. He also said officers would not routinely wear face coverings during protests except for exigent safety reasons.

Community concerns raised to the board Dozens of public commenters questioned the constitutionality and enforceability of the mask ordinance and described their own experiences on June 14. - Florencia Flores, a resident, said she appreciated officers who respected peaceful protesters but reported uneven treatment downtown and raised concerns about visible firearms and trauma to families of arrestees. "I especially wanted to thank those officers who respected the rights of individuals to peacefully protest," Flores said. - Tom (resident) said the ordinance is "a bad law" and "in my opinion, it's unconstitutional," and warned the city risks lawsuits and community harm by enforcing a vague ban that may chill protected speech. - Nora Garcia said organizers' megaphones had been confiscated during the 10 a.m. protest and asked why organizers were not given options such as removing masks or handing over poles before arrests were made. - Several other speakers described heavy police presence, use of unmarked vehicles, cameras and drones, and said arrests were humiliating, traumatizing and disproportionate.

Board discussion and follow-up actions Board members pressed Gillespie on a number of topics: whether permits were required for protests (Gillespie said they generally are not), how exemptions for religious or medical mask use are determined, whether some cities simply ban masks with no exemptions, and whether enforcement is applied equally across demonstrations.

After discussion, the board took several administrative votes that are part of this meeting record: - Consent: approval of the CPRB minutes from the June 18, 2025 meeting (voice vote: "Aye"). - Excused absence: the board granted an excused absence for Member Grant (voice vote: "Aye"). - NACo conference attendance: the board approved travel for two board members to attend the 2025 NACo conference in October (motion passed; appointees selected by the board). - Ordinance review ad hoc: following sustained public concern and board discussion, the CPRB established an ad hoc subcommittee to review Modesto Municipal Code section 4-23.02 (the mask and prohibited-items ordinance). Appointed members include board members Wendy (last name not specified), Brad Hahn and Latricia Beasley Day; the chair's role on ad hoc committees was discussed in the meeting as an administrative matter.

What the police said they will do next Gillespie said MPD will: improve signage at known protest locations, correct social-media postings to include the ordinance text, improve field/real-time-crime-center communications, clarify arrest notification practices so arrestees are told charges as soon as practicable, and continue outreach efforts to develop points of contact with protest organizers.

Community response and outstanding issues Public commenters and some board members urged the board to recommend the city council repeal or amend the ordinance and asked that charges be dropped for arrestees. Others asked for better transparency about camera placement and what data the department shares publicly about stops and use of force.

Ending The board closed the item after public comment and moved to other agenda business, including the draft annual report and committee matters. The ad hoc committee to review the municipal code will be convened and is expected to report back to the CPRB for any recommendations to the city manager or the council.

Quotes (selected and verbatim) "The First Amendment of the Constitution guarantees the right of the people to peacefully assemble." Chief Brandon Gillespie. "I especially wanted to thank those officers who respected the rights of individuals to peacefully protest." Florencia Flores (community member). "This is a bad law. In my opinion, it's unconstitutional." Tom (resident). "I did not hear during the presentation an address of the confiscation of the organizers' megaphones during the ice out protests." Nora Garcia (community member).

Ending note: The board's ad hoc review of municipal code 4-23.02 and MPD's corrections (signage, communications, and outreach) will be items to watch at follow-up CPRB meetings. The department and the community offered sharply different perspectives about June 14; the CPRB created a small working group to review the ordinance and report back to the board for possible recommendations to the city.