OLYMPIA, WA – A ban on police face coverings has been one of the most talked about policy proposals in the first two days of Washington’s legislative session, with lead lawmakers and the governor lining up in support.
Senate Bill 5855, which covers local, state and federal law enforcement, stems 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.
Last week, for example, masked U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents reportedly arrested three people and pulled them into an unmarked van, according to The Seattle Times.
The House speaker and Senate majority leader both cited the bill as a priority, and Gov. Bob Ferguson called it out in his State of the State address on Tuesday.
“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.”
Ferguson’s 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 on Tuesday the bill could run afoul of the U.S. Constitution. Serrano, who also serves as “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.”
In September, California became the first state to approve such a ban. It took effect Jan. 1.
The Trump administration is suing to block the law. Sen. Jeff Holy, R-Cheney, argued the Washington bill “isn’t ready for primetime” until courts weigh in on the California law.
The federal government has argued masking is necessary for immigration agents threatened by members of the public who can share authorities’ personal information online.
Under the legislation, people detained by masked officers could sue them in their official capacity, potentially opening up local governments to legal liability.
There would be exceptions to the ban, like for undercover officers or members of SWAT operations. It also doesn’t cover face shields, helmets or personal protective equipment.
In 2021, the Legislature passed a law requiring officers be “reasonably identifiable” while on duty, but it doesn’t touch on 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. James McMahan, the group’s policy director, told lawmakers current law requiring authorities to be “reasonably identifiable” is enough and the bill needs more exemptions, like for officers working in freezing weather.
Paula Sardinas, founder of the Washington Build Back Black Alliance, called the legislation a “common sense accountability measure.”
“Accountability is not anti-police, transparency is not anti-safety,” Sardinas said. “Clear standards protect the officers and the public alike by reducing escalations, misunderstandings and harm.”
The Law and Justice Committee is set to vote on the bill Thursday, putting it a step closer to the Senate floor. The identical version of the legislation in the House was also set to be heard in committee Tuesday afternoon.
If both chambers pass the policy and the governor signs, it would take effect in June.
Washington State Standard is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Washington State Standard maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Bill Lucia for questions: info@washingtonstatestandard.com.
