OLYMPIA, WA - Putting a ban on police officers wearing face coverings was one of the most talked-about policy proposals in the first two days of Washington State's legislative session.
Senate Bill 5855, which covers local, state, and federal law enforcement, has led lawmakers and the governor to line up in support, according to News From The States. The bill itself is said to stem from fears of masked federal agents carrying out immigration raids and arrests across the country.
The bill's prime sponsor, Sen. Javier Valdez (D-Seattle), said he thinks "it will make our marginalized immigrant communities feel safer" and build "trust between the public and police." The House speaker and Senate majority leader both cited the bill as a priority, and Governor Bob Ferguson called it out in his State of the State address on Tuesday, January 13.
"As an American, I never thought I would see federal agents in masks jumping out of unmarked cars and grabbing people off our streets," Ferguson said during the speech. "Let's get that legislation to my desk immediately."
His comments were greeted by a standing ovation from Democratic lawmakers. Pete Serrano, who leads the federal prosecutor's office in eastern Washington, told the Senate Law and Justice Committee that the bill would run afoul of the U.S. Constitution.
Serrano, who also serves as a "special attorney" to Attorney General Pam Bondi, cited the Constitution's supremacy clause that holds federal statutes "shall be the supreme Law of the Land."
Washington is not the only state looking to pass this type of policy. In September, California became the first state to approve such a ban. It took effect on January 1. The Trump administration has already filed a lawsuit to block the law. Sen. Jeff Holy (R-Cheney), argued that the Washington bill "isn't ready for primetime" until courts weigh in on the California law.
The federal government has argued that masking is necessary for immigration agents threatened by members of the public who can share authorities' personal information online.
Under the proposed legislation, people detained by masked officers could sue them in their official capacity, potentially opening up local governments to legal liability. There would, however, be exceptions to the ban, like for undercover officers or members of SWAT operations.
It also does not cover face shields, helmets, or personal protective equipment. In 2021, the Legislature passed a law requiring officers to be "reasonably identifiable" while on duty, but it doesn't touch face coverings. The same year, Congress required military members and federal law enforcement to visibly display their name and employer while responding to civil disturbances.
The federal law exempts those who don't wear uniforms while carrying out their duties and those working undercover. The Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs is opposed to the new legislation in Washington State.
James McMahan, the group's policy director, told lawmakers that the current law requiring authorities to be "reasonably identifiable" is enough, and the bill needs more exemptions, like for officers working in freezing weather. The Law and Justice Committee is set to vote on the bill on Thursday, January 15, putting it a step closer to the Senate floor.
The identical version of the legislation in the House was set to be heard in committee on Tuesday, January 13. If both chambers pass the policy and the governor signs, it would take effect in June.
Senate Bill 5855, which covers local, state, and federal law enforcement, has led lawmakers and the governor to line up in support, according to News From The States. The bill itself is said to stem from fears of masked federal agents carrying out immigration raids and arrests across the country.
The bill's prime sponsor, Sen. Javier Valdez (D-Seattle), said he thinks "it will make our marginalized immigrant communities feel safer" and build "trust between the public and police." The House speaker and Senate majority leader both cited the bill as a priority, and Governor Bob Ferguson called it out in his State of the State address on Tuesday, January 13.
"As an American, I never thought I would see federal agents in masks jumping out of unmarked cars and grabbing people off our streets," Ferguson said during the speech. "Let's get that legislation to my desk immediately."
His comments were greeted by a standing ovation from Democratic lawmakers. Pete Serrano, who leads the federal prosecutor's office in eastern Washington, told the Senate Law and Justice Committee that the bill would run afoul of the U.S. Constitution.
Serrano, who also serves as a "special attorney" to Attorney General Pam Bondi, cited the Constitution's supremacy clause that holds federal statutes "shall be the supreme Law of the Land."
Washington is not the only state looking to pass this type of policy. In September, California became the first state to approve such a ban. It took effect on January 1. The Trump administration has already filed a lawsuit to block the law. Sen. Jeff Holy (R-Cheney), argued that the Washington bill "isn't ready for primetime" until courts weigh in on the California law.
The federal government has argued that masking is necessary for immigration agents threatened by members of the public who can share authorities' personal information online.
Under the proposed legislation, people detained by masked officers could sue them in their official capacity, potentially opening up local governments to legal liability. There would, however, be exceptions to the ban, like for undercover officers or members of SWAT operations.
It also does not cover face shields, helmets, or personal protective equipment. In 2021, the Legislature passed a law requiring officers to be "reasonably identifiable" while on duty, but it doesn't touch face coverings. The same year, Congress required military members and federal law enforcement to visibly display their name and employer while responding to civil disturbances.
The federal law exempts those who don't wear uniforms while carrying out their duties and those working undercover. The Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs is opposed to the new legislation in Washington State.
James McMahan, the group's policy director, told lawmakers that the current law requiring authorities to be "reasonably identifiable" is enough, and the bill needs more exemptions, like for officers working in freezing weather. The Law and Justice Committee is set to vote on the bill on Thursday, January 15, putting it a step closer to the Senate floor.
The identical version of the legislation in the House was set to be heard in committee on Tuesday, January 13. If both chambers pass the policy and the governor signs, it would take effect in June.
For corrections or revisions, click here.
The opinions reflected in this article are not necessarily the opinions of LET
Comments