Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Pima County adopts ordinance restricting unidentified/masked groups, exempts identified officers
Summary
The board adopted Ordinance 2026-2 to prohibit gatherings by unidentified masked groups in certain public spaces when the mask and conduct cause intimidation; the measure clarifies law‑enforcement exemptions and establishes escalating misdemeanor penalties.
The Pima County Board of Supervisors adopted Ordinance 2026-2 on April 7, adding a county code chapter aimed at "regulation of unidentified masked groups causing intimidation," with explicit exemptions for identified law‑enforcement officers.
Deputy county counsel read a set of amendments and clarifications that the board approved. The revised ordinance adds a policy declaration and cites the county’s authority over public rights-of-way; it states the purpose is "to protect the inhabitants of Pima County from intimidation caused by unidentified masked groups and prevent unintentional interference with legitimate law enforcement operations." The text also cites a February 2026 federal district-court decision in support of the board’s findings.
The ordinance expands the list of prohibited items and gear associated with the new rule to include "military or law-enforcement-style professional chemical agents" and zip-tie style restraints. It also establishes escalating penalties for repeat violations: a first violation is charged as a class 3 misdemeanor (fine up to $500, up to 30 days jail, up to one year probation); a second is a class 2 misdemeanor (fine up to $750, up to four months jail, up to two years probation); and subsequent violations are class 1 misdemeanors (fine up to $2,500, up to six months in jail, up to three years probation).
The ordinance expressly states identified federal law-enforcement officers may wear masks when necessary to conceal identity while remaining "identifiable as a legitimate law enforcement officer," and it removes a specific reference to coordination between local law enforcement and the community in the operative text. The measure passed on a 4–1 vote.
Supporters argued the ordinance protects residents and prevents intimidation; critics at public comment and elsewhere warned about possible constitutional implications and cited state and federal law constraints on local regulation of immigration and federal officers. The board moved the ordinance after executive-session briefings and legal review.
The county attorney’s office will publish the final text and enforcement guidance; the board recorded the ordinance as adopted and directed staff to provide the operative language to relevant departments.
