Wiener Won’t Stay Concealed After Judge Blocks Police Mask Law

A state senator from San Francisco this week announced a clever strategy to rescue legislation about law enforcement wearing face masks after its enforcement was blocked by a federal judge in Southern California.

Senate Bill 627 is the California law called the No Secret Police Act that, subject to several listed exceptions, forbids federal law enforcement officers from wearing face masks while performing their official duties.

The law, which would have become effective Jan. 1 of this year, was challenged by the federal government on the grounds that California does not have the power to regulate federal officials doing their jobs. The government asked a federal court to issue a preliminary injunction to block the law while the case is pending.

In a ruling Monday, U.S. District Judge Christina Snyder said that while California had the general power to prohibit federal officers from wearing masks, it could not do so in a discriminatory way. By not imposing the same requirements on all state officers, SB 627 was in conflict with the authority granted to the federal government and she must block its enforcement.

Within hours of the ruling, state Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, and three co-sponsors introduced Senate Bill 1004 to change California law so that it applied the no-mask rule to all peace officers in the state.

If the new bill is passed, it would seemingly eliminate the basis for the preliminary injunction.

Wiener has called for the bill to be moved as quickly as possible. The draft bill is an “urgency statute” necessary “for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety within the meaning of Article IV of the California Constitution and shall go into immediate effect” upon approval.

The ultimate decision on the timing of the bill’s consideration will be up to the leadership in the state Legislature.

Wiener said in a statement when announcing SB 627 last year that “recent federal operations in California have created an environment of profound terror. If we want the public to trust law enforcement, we cannot allow them to behave like secret police in an authoritarian state.”
In challenging the law, the U.S. government argued that masking is critical to the safety of federal officers because they are subject to “greater risks of being doxed, harassed, assaulted, or threatened,” particularly in so-called “sanctuary jurisdictions.”

In her order, Synder recognized that federal law enforcement officers — “like many public figures, including judges, politicians, and celebrities” — are exposed to such risks by virtue of their public work. However, she did not see how wearing masks was helpful in this “tense political environment.”

“If anything,” she wrote, “the Court finds that the presence of masked and unidentifiable individuals, including law enforcement, is more likely to heighten the sense of insecurity for all.”

Wiener was not reticent in explaining his rationale for SB 1004.

He said in a statement, “Fighting a fascist regime means fighting with every ounce of leverage you have and throwing every single obstacle you can in its path. That’s what we did here … We will unmask these thugs and hold them accountable. Full stop.”