Montgomery County committee advances ‘Unmasked ICE Act’ with ID requirement and reporting portal

A Montgomery County Public Safety Committee on April 17 voted unanimously in committee to advance Bill 5-26 — nicknamed the "Unmasked ICE Act" — to the full County Council with a set of clarifying and enforcement-related amendments.

The bill would prohibit federal, state and local law-enforcement officers from wearing masks or face coverings while on duty, with enumerated exceptions for medical-grade masks (surgical or N95 respirators), smoke/fire protection, water rescues, exposure to biological or chemical agents, and face coverings necessitated by declared extreme weather events. Ms. McCartney Green, the staff analyst who presented the measure, said the provision also contains a limited SWAT-team exception.

The committee adopted three key local changes: language to sunset the county law once the Maryland Police Training and Standards Commission issues a uniform policy (instead of tying repeal to a fixed Oct. 1 date); a visible-identification requirement that an officer display name, an ID/badge number and agency affiliation on the outermost layer of clothing while on duty; and a reporting and enforcement approach that would accept online submissions to a county portal for the county attorney to review.

"The bill would seek to prohibit federal, state, or local law enforcement agencies from wearing masks or facial covers while on duty," McCartney Green said while reviewing the draft. She also summarized out-of-state litigation, noting court challenges in California and split decisions on similar measures.

Proponents said the identification and portal elements are intended primarily to increase transparency and to create evidence trails when residents report masked federal agents operating in the county. One councilmember outlining an enforcement amendment described possible civil citations and internal review: under the proposal enforcement officers could issue a civil citation under County Code §118, mask violations could be treated as a Class A offense with a $500 fine, and certain violations by county officers would be reviewable as police misconduct.

"It's a $500 fine," McCartney Green said when the proposed penalty was discussed. Committee members emphasized the portal was designed to reduce confrontations by allowing residents to submit photos or reports rather than engage directly with officers.

County staff and police leaders cautioned about practical limits and legal questions. Earl Stoddard, the assistant chief administrative officer relaying the county attorney's advice, said local policy would likely remain in effect until the state issues its uniform policy, but that the process could take months. Assistant Chief Darren Frank of Montgomery County Police said the department already requires visible identification and urged caution to avoid placing county officers in risky confrontations with federal agents.

"Our policies match the law. And most importantly, our officers have adapted and abided by the law consistently," Assistant Chief Darren Frank said, noting the department's existing identification practices.

Committee members repeatedly flagged constitutional and federalism uncertainty: staff cited a recent federal-court preliminary injunction in California and members debated whether local citations could be effective against federal officers. The county attorney’s office retains discretion to decide whether portal submissions warrant formal enforcement or referral to other authorities, staff said.

Members also refined the bill's safety exceptions after police raised real-world scenarios: deputies asked that the exception for weather be aligned to the county's extreme temperature plan and that exceptions reflect OSHA standards and reasonable workplace accommodations, to avoid punishing routine or safety-driven uses of face coverings.

The committee recorded a 3-0 committee vote to move the amended bill to the full council and also recorded 3-0 committee support for the portal and expedited-bill language; the committee directed staff to draft precise language and return the ordinance to the full council for final consideration.

The full council will consider the bill and the committee-specified amendments at a future meeting. The work session did not record a final countywide ordinance adoption; committee members asked staff to confirm language details, evidentiary standards for any citation process, and the precise triggering mechanism tied to the state's policy issuance.