WA Legislature considering face mask bans for law enforcement

OLYMPIA — Washington lawmakers have introduced a bill that aims to ban local and federal law enforcement officers from wearing facial coverings while interacting with the public.  

Sen. Javier Valdez, D-Seattle, and Rep. Julio Cortes, D-Everett, are the main sponsors of companion bills SB 5855 and HB 2173, with both versions having had a public hearing Tuesday.  

The legislation is in direct response to the ongoing immigration raids under the Trump administration, during which Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents are known to wear masks, concealing their identities.  

“Obviously, I think we're all aware of incidents that started occurring last year where we started seeing law enforcement officers throughout the country, where they were bringing intimidation tactics and causing fear in neighborhoods, in our families, and in communities,” said Valdez in the Senate Law and Justice Committee public hearing. “Senate Bill 5855 will help continue to build trust with our law enforcement.” 

According to the bill, facial coverings are an opaque mask, garment, or other item that hides the facial identity of an individual. This includes but is not limited to a balaclava, tactical mask, gator, and ski masks, while transparent face shields, clear masks, respirators used in hazardous environments and helmets worn for transportation are explicitly allowed.  

If passed, the bill aims to reinforce existing requirements under RCW 10.116.050 that state officers must be reasonably identifiable by a clearly displayed name or other information on the officer’s uniform. 

There are two narrow expectations where the prohibition does not apply, including officers performing their duties as undercover operatives during active undercover operations or protective gear used by special weapons and tactics teams.  

The bill also establishes a civil cause of action for a person who is detained by an officer violating the prohibition on facial coverings that allows them to seek compensation, attorney fees, and other relief the court deems appropriate.   

The bill is modeled after California’s No Secret Police Act that took effect earlier last week. The Trump administration has since filed a lawsuit in federal court challenging the state’s power to regulate the conduct of federal law enforcement under the Supremacy Clause.  

“I’m not sure that this is ready for prime time until the issue actually is resolved in California,” said Sen. Jeff Holy, R-Cheney, ranking member of the Senate Law and Justice Committee. “Could be jumping the horse just a little bit here.”  

Those who came to testify in support of the bill urged that it is necessary for building trust between communities and law enforcement officials.  

According to Paula Filmore-Sardinas, CEO of the Washington Build Black Alliance, SB 5855 is a “common sense accountability measure.”   

“The bill affirms the simple principle that when law enforcement interact with (civilians), we have the right to know who is exercising their authority over us,” Filmore-Sardinas said.  

Elizabeth Hendren, attorney with the Sexual Violence Law Center non-profit law firm, echoed similar sentiments, emphasizing the need for greater transparency to deter individuals from posing as fake law enforcement officers.  

“Vigilantes wear masks, trusted officers do not,” Hendren said. “Allowing or normalizing masked law enforcement creates real risks for survivors and opens the door for abusers to weaponize fear, authority, and anonymity.”  

Those who testified against the bill argued that the legislation is unnecessary and impacts local law enforcement officers while targeting federal agents.  

According to Andres Viesa, candidate for Washington’s 8th Congressional District, face coverings have not prevented the public from identifying officers.  

“We allow protesters, even those engaging in intimidation, to wear masks with no restrictions, yet this bill singles out one specific group, law enforcement officers and prohibits them uniquely from taking some basic measure to protect their own safety,” Viesa said.  

Pete Serrano, United States attorney for the Eastern District of Washington, also testified in opposition. He argued that, along with the bill’s constitutionality issues, it also puts law enforcement officers and their families at risk.  

“We're seeing instances of increasing doxxing members,” Serrano said. “The United States put out a position in the DHS that, as of last fall, doxing increased by a 1000% and 8000% death threats to our members of the law enforcement community.”  

Grant County Sheriff Joey Kriete expressed that while he supports efforts to increase transparency and accountability, Washington already has existing laws that require officers to display their identification. 

“I think they're targeting the wrong people on this bill,” Kriete said.  

Kriete said that although he believes this to be a federal issue, he hopes to see lawmakers clarify the legislation and address officers who wear facial coverings because of inclement weather.  

SB 5855 is scheduled for an executive session in the Senate committee on Law and Justice on Thursday.