Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Law Enforcement Accountability topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bill to ban identity‑concealing face coverings by officers prompts split between community advocates and law enforcement
Summary
SB 5,855 would prohibit opaque, identity‑concealing face coverings by law enforcement during public interactions (with enumerated exceptions). Supporters — including the governor’s office, survivor advocates and community groups — argued it builds trust; opponents, including federal prosecutors and law enforcement associations, warned of constitutional preemption, officer safety and liability risks.
Senators debated SB 5,855, which would broadly ban law‑enforcement officers from wearing opaque face coverings while interacting with the public, subject to narrow exceptions (N95s, surgical masks, protective gear for hazardous environments, motorcycle helmets, undercover or SWAT protective gear). The bill also creates a private right of action for individuals detained by an unlawfully masked state or local officer.
Sponsor Senator Javier Valdez said the bill aims to build trust and address incidents in which masked agents detained individuals without presenting identification. The governor’s public-safety advisor, Nathan Olson, supported the bill as consistent with Washington’s existing reasonable-identification statute and urged a pass recommendation.
Supporters including the Washington Black Alliance (Paula Sardinas), survivor-advocacy groups (Elizabeth Hendren, Violence Law Center), the League of Women Voters and faith organizations framed the measure as a transparency and public-safety reform. "Accounting for community trauma," advocates said, they view opaque masks as undermining trust and allowing impersonation by bad actors.
Opponents voiced constitutional and operational concerns. Pete Serrano (First Assistant U.S. Attorney) testified the bill could raise federal‑supremacy and intergovernmental‑immunity issues and that the U.S. has sued California over similar legislation. Law‑enforcement groups, county and city associations, and some first‑responder witnesses argued the bill’s broad prohibitions and the private cause of action could expose local agencies to heavy liability and make officers and their families the target of doxxing and threats.
Several witnesses asked for narrower drafting and clearer exemptions or caps on liability; city and county groups asked the sponsor to meet and refine the language to avoid unintended consequences. The committee closed testimony after a heavy, mixed record of pro and con witnesses and asked for written testimony from those unable to speak.
