Editor’s note: Senate Bill 627, signed into law in 2025 in California, prohibits local law enforcement officers from wearing face coverings while on duty unless certain exceptions apply. Supporters say the law — also known as the “No Secret Police Act” — promotes transparency, while opponents warn it exposes local officers to lawsuits and limits their ability to safely perform their duties.
By Brian R. Marvel, President of the Peace Officers Research Association of California (PORAC)
Let me be clear at the outset: SB 627 must be fixed — and we will fix it.
I am deeply disappointed that California’s elected leaders passed Senate Bill 627 into law. In my decades serving as a peace officer and eight years representing more than 87,000 California public safety professionals, I have never seen a bill that grossly misleads the public as SB 627. The bill author claims this law will protect California’s immigrant communities by making it a crime for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials to wear masks. The problem? SB 627 doesn’t regulate federal officials — at all.
| RELATED: State your case: Should officers face charges for wearing face coverings during operations?
Local officers caught in the middle
The truth is that California has no legal authority to regulate federal operations. We cannot require the U.S. Navy to switch to electric vessels when entering our shorelines. We cannot issue new dress codes for the FBI or Secret Service. We can’t impose a cap on how much money the IRS can collect. And we cannot tell ICE how to operate. SB 627 is unconstitutional, which is why the Trump Administration directed ICE officers to ignore the law. This bill was enacted with reckless disregard for California’s immigrant communities, falsely promising to end masked ICE operations and leaving them deceived when ICE’s practices remain unchanged next year.
“When California signed Senate Bill 627, it didn’t just pass a law; it betrayed its first responders and local heroes who put their lives on the line every day to protect their communities.”
So, who does SB 627 impact? State peace officers are exempt. Federal officers have been ordered not to comply. What’s left is California’s local, municipal and county peace officers who are unfairly caught in the crosshairs of a fight that we didn’t choose.
The last-minute amendments to SB 627 strip long-standing immunity protections exclusively from local peace officers if they wear any kind of face covering — whether a mask, helmet, garment or eyewear — outside of narrow, poorly defined exceptions. There was no time for real debate or legal vetting, and the result is a statute so inconsistent that attorneys and policymakers cannot agree on when and how it applies. If experts can’t make sense of it, how can we expect officers in split-second, life-or-death situations to act without fear of lawsuits? We can’t.
Legal gaps and safety risks
While the bill language states that officers can’t be tried in court for their face coverings if their local departments have a masking policy in place by June of 2026, the bill takes effect in January of 2026 — opening a Pandora’s box of potential lawsuits and chaos for those six months in between. This is not something that can be “fixed down the road” — it must be fixed now.
“This law deceives Californians while targeting local officers and making them collateral damage in this state versus federal showdown.”
This bill was passed with the notion that it would only apply to officers who maliciously commit a crime while wearing a ski mask. This is false. This bill strips longstanding immunity protections from officers acting in good faith simply because a portion of their face was concealed. These protections, which have had decades of bipartisan support and formed the bedrock of the policing profession, allow officers acting in good faith to keep communities safe without fear of retaliation.
By undermining these protections, SB 627 puts local communities at a disadvantage when officers pause in critical, life-threatening situations. This will have a chilling effect on the profession that will undermine officer recruitment and drive existing local officers out of California — or, ironically, to federal and state agencies that are exempt from this law. With our departments already critically understaffed, we can scarcely afford misguided legislation like SB 627.
Politics over public safety
As local peace officers, we work in, live in and care deeply about the communities we serve. We are not federal agents. We work within the confines of California’s laws that limit us from using resources for immigration enforcement — while proudly serving the state we call home.
This issue is too important to get wrong. Peace officers shouldn’t be a pawn in a messaging war between our state and federal governments. We appreciate every elected official who heard our concerns and stood by us and California’s immigrant communities during this fight. Because of the misguided, misdirected and poorly crafted bill, California’s governor has already personally directed the legislature to address these concerns next session.
SB 627 exploits an emotionally charged issue for political gain. Californians deserve laws that protect, not politicize. As California’s largest law enforcement organization, PORAC will fight for legislation next session to fix SB 627’s dangerous flaws and right this wrong.
Tactical takeaway
California’s SB 627 — the so-called “secret police” bill — highlights how quickly policy changes can create operational and legal uncertainty for officers. Law enforcement leaders should proactively review agency policies on uniforms and protective gear to ensure compliance and protect their personnel from unnecessary exposure.
How can local agencies protect their officers when new state laws create confusion or conflict with federal policy? Share below.
About the author
Brian R. Marvel is President of the Peace Officers Research Association of California (PORAC). The Peace Officers Research Association of California (PORAC) was incorporated in 1953 as a professional federation of local, state and federal law enforcement agencies. PORAC represents over 82,000 public safety members and over 950 associations, making it the largest law enforcement organization in California and the largest statewide association in the nation.
Police1 columnists respond
Manufactured crisis and misplaced priorities
Once again, the California Legislature and the governor are using the power of government as a bully pulpit for virtue signaling and political grandstanding — this time at the direct expense of police officer safety. The newly enacted “mask law” is less about public accountability and more about sending a symbolic “shot across the bow” to the federal government, as the state continues to resist immigration enforcement efforts within California.
The most troubling aspect of this law is that it presents a manufactured solution to a non-existent problem. The governor’s frustration is not rooted in officer conduct but rather in California’s inability to halt federal law enforcement activity in a self-proclaimed “sanctuary state.” By enacting this legislation, the state is not enhancing transparency or safety — it is actively deepening the divide between federal and state law enforcement agencies.
The governor’s claim that concerns about doxing and the online targeting of officers are “unfounded and unproven” is demonstrably false. In reality, assaults on federal law enforcement officers have risen dramatically — over 1,000%, according to the Department of Homeland Security. To dismiss those risks as speculative is both reckless and insulting to the men and women who put their lives on the line daily.
This legislation raises two serious issues:
- Operational burden on departments: Local departments will now face a surge of complaints whenever an officer is seen wearing a mask, regardless of exemptions for undercover work or medical necessity. Investigating these complaints will waste precious time and resources, diverting attention away from genuine public safety needs.
- State–federal conflict: Even more concerning, this law forces California law enforcement into an impossible position. The federal government has already made it clear that it will not comply since the statute has no authority over federal agents. Inevitably, lawsuits will follow — draining taxpayer dollars and further entangling law enforcement in needless legal battles. It is doubtful a California police officer is going to arrest a federal officer.
Beyond the legal wrangling, the broader message is unmistakable: the safety of law enforcement officers is not a priority for this governor or this legislature. Instead, political optics and the desire to obstruct federal enforcement take precedence. At a time when public trust in institutions is strained and violent resistance to authority is on the rise, California has chosen to add more risk and division rather than solutions.
In short, this legislation doesn’t solve problems — it creates them. And it does so at the cost of those tasked with keeping both Californians and the nation safe.
— Paul Cappitelli
The mask isn’t the issue — politics is
If this law were really about masks for well-articulated reasons, I could at least understand a legislator supporting it. But it is clearly not about masks. It is about the governor thumbing his nose at ICE, poking Trump for political traction and perpetuating the state’s attack on law enforcement. California’s gradual efforts toward abolition of law enforcement through repeated centralized policymaking from comfy chairs in Sacramento can’t wear the disguise of reform anymore. They just don’t like us.
— Chief Joel Shults, Ed.D.
Lawmakers out of touch with reality
This is one more action taken by legislators in a long line of actions that demonstrates to anyone watching that their priority is facilitating criminal behavior over protecting the health, welfare and safety of good citizens and the law enforcement officers sworn to protect them.
I wonder if any of these legislators have sat down off-camera to talk with the officers enforcing these laws, to listen to why they believe they need to wear masks at this particular point in time. If they did, they might not be proposing this legislation.
I would like to address the bigger problem by saying to every legislator in the nation who thinks they are elected to protect people engaged in criminal behavior while defaming police officers and ignoring the plight of victims: Stop being a part of the problem and start being a part of the solution.
— Lt. Dan Marcou
The “No Secret Police Act” misses the mark
The “No Secret Police Act,” signed by the governor of California, is virtue signaling in its highest form. It is the only legislation of its kind in the nation because it will not pass the constitutional sniff test in limiting its main intended target — federal government entities like ICE and Border Patrol.
State and local police are vilified in its title alone, insinuating that police are similar to oppressive regimes of other countries and times.
The reasons for legitimate use of face coverings have been well documented. The need to use them in anticipation of politically charged venues is protection from personal attacks on officers and their families due to doxing. This legislation is a solution in search of a problem.
— Jim Dudley
The evolving threat of personal data to obstruct justice and imperil officers
