Newsome Signs the "No Secret Police Act" (S.B. 627) into Law: Watch David E. Mastagni's Senate Public Safety Committee Testimony in Opposition

    On September 11, 2025, David E. Mastagni, a partner at Mastagni Holstedt and counsel for the Peace Officers Research Association of California (PORAC), testified before the California Senate Public Safety Committee in opposition to Senate Bill 627 along with Jonathan Feldman, lobbyist for the California Police Chiefs Association. Despite opposition highlighting the bill's dangers, Governor Gavin Newsom signed S.B. 627 into law on September 20, 2025. They explained how dangerous last minute amendments make the bill detrimental to public safety, by stripping important immunity protections for local officers who unintentionally violate the statute. Mastagni pointed out that because of the Supremacy Clause, this bill will not apply to federal officers, yet its severability clause means its restrictions and legal jeopardy will fall solely on California’s local peace officers, who don’t enforce federal immigration laws.

    Despite opposition highlighting the bill's dangers, Governor Gavin Newsom signed the "No Secret Police Act" into law on September 20, 2025. In his signing message, Newsom stated: "I am signing Senate Bill 627, which prohibits law enforcement officers, including federal immigration officers, from wearing masks or other face coverings that conceal their identity while performing their duties in public, with certain exceptions. This bill is an important step toward increasing transparency and accountability in law enforcement, particularly in light of reports of federal immigration officers concealing their identities during operations that have caused fear and mistrust in communities.

Scope and Purpose of S.B. 627

    S.B. 627, authored primarily by Senator Scott Wiener, prohibits local and federal law enforcement officers from concealing their faces with coverings during the performance of their duties. Senator Wiener described the bill as targeting secret police tactics, particularly by federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents. He argued that routine masking fosters mistrust, instills fear, and emboldens officers to violate civil rights with impunity.

    The bill defines prohibited facial coverings broadly to include any opaque mask, garment, helmet, headgear, or other item that obscures facial identity, such as balaclavas, tactical masks, or ski masks. The law includes narrow exceptions for certain safety equipment and circumstances, but they  are vague and open to conflicting interpretations. Violations constitute infractions or misdemeanors, with additional penalties including loss of immunities and statutory liability of $10,000.00 for tortious conduct committed while masked. Under the bill, enforcement agencies must develop policies to ensure officers adhere to these provisions by July 2026. 

Risks to Officer Safety and Operational Efficiency  

    In his testimony, Mastagni that facial coverings serve crucial safety functions for law enforcement officers and federal agents. Masks and helmets are often integral to protecting identities during sensitive, undercover, or tactical operations. Such protective gear shields officers and agents from retaliation, threats, or targeted harassment.

    He pointed out how the overly narrow and vague exceptions in the bill endanger officer safety and operational effectiveness. For example, the bill's prohibition on motor officers wearing helmets unless using a motorcycle contradicts standard training and roadside safety protocols. An officer could be exposed to fentanyl or other dangerous chemicals during a routine search of a car or home and need to cover their face with anything available in order to survive.  

    The bill also imposes burdens on local agencies by requiring them to develop compliant policies by July 2026. Law enforcement groups, such as PORAC and CPCA, fear that theses heightened safety risks and exposure to liability will exacerbate California's police staffing crisis. 

The Law Contradicts Established Federal and State Precedents: The Supremacy Clause

    Mastagni addressed the bills application to federal officers, citing Supreme Court precedent under the Supremacy Clause, including Cunningham v. Neagle (1890), which protects federal agents from state criminal prosecution when acting within their official duties. In Arizona v. United States (2012), the Court invalidated state laws intruding on federal immigration enforcement. The same applies here. States cannot second guess federal policies, such as ICE directives authorizing masks for officer protection. The bill creates conflict preemption, as officers cannot comply with both state and federal rules without compromising safety or mission effectiveness.

    Senator Wiener and supporters of S.B. 627 often refer to an op-ed by Erwin Chemerinsky, dean and professor of law at the UC Berkeley School of Law, to support the bill's constitutionality. This argument fails. Professor Chemerinsky contends that S.B. 627 can regulate federal agents' mask wearing because it is a law of general applicability that applies to all law enforcement officers rather than specifically targeting federal operations. Notably, he omits reference to the exclusion of California state peace officers. He compares the bill to federal agents' compliance with everyday state laws like traffic rules. 

Flawed Legal Justifications and Misinterpretations 

    Although written as a “general” law, it cannot be applied to federal officers if it interferes with federal operations. While appearing facially neutral, its practical effect substantially interferes with federal law enforcement operations in ways that traffic laws do not. Federal immigration enforcement involves unique considerations, including officer safety from targeted retaliation and protection of sensitive investigations that local law enforcement typically does not face. This creates an undue burden on federal operations that triggers intergovernmental immunity principles, protecting federal activities from state interference even when laws appear neutral on their face.

    Chemerinsky further asserts that requiring officers not to wear masks does not constitute a significant burden on federal activities and does not impede federal agents' performance of their duties. This overlooks the fundamental differences between local policing and federal immigration enforcement. Federal agents frequently operate in sensitive contexts where identity protection is critical for both officer safety and operational success. Even if only 10 percent of operations require face coverings, that represents thousands of high risk federal operations annually where agent safety would be compromised.

    Courts typically defer to federal determinations that prohibitions on face coverings create substantial burdens on operations by compromising officer safety, operational security, and effectiveness. The legislation seeks to second guess policy determinations that federal agents, particularly in immigration enforcement, face unique threats from targeted retaliation against them and their families through doxing and harassment. The inability to protect their identities would significantly impair their ability to conduct sensitive operations, gather intelligence, and work undercover. These burdens are concrete operational impediments that directly interfere with federal law enforcement functions.

    Chemerinsky cites Ninth Circuit precedent that states can prosecute federal agents criminally if their actions are objectively unreasonable, suggesting this provides a pathway for enforcement of S.B. 627 against non compliant federal officers. He primarily relies on the vacated Ninth Circuit decision in Idaho v. Horiuchi, 253 F.3d 359 (Ninth Cir. 2001), vacated at 266 F.3d 979 (Ninth Cir. 2001). The Ninth Circuit's objectively unreasonable standard applies to federal agents who exceed their authority or violate constitutional rights, not to agents following lawful federal protocols. Wearing masks during legitimate operations is standard procedure for many federal agencies based on assessed security risks and operational needs. Criminalizing conduct that follows established federal guidelines would allow state law to dictate federal operational procedures, creating an impermissible state veto over federal law enforcement methods. This directly conflicts with Supremacy Clause principles that protect federal operations from state interference.

    When asked if Legislative Counsel had time to review S.B. 627 to determine if it would hold up in court, Senator Wiener dodged the question. U.S. Attorney Martin Estrada for the Central District of California stated that federal agents will not alter their practices, calling the law unconstitutional and preempted by federal authority. Local officers may face the impossible task of enforcing S.B. 627 against federal personnel, risking claims of obstruction or false arrest if courts invalidate the statute.

Threat to Immunities Local Officers Need to Perform Their Duties

   

    At the Public Safety Committee hearing, Senator Wiener and his supporters erroneously claimed that the bills' “knowing and willful” violation language shields officers who make good faith mistake regarding whether an exemption applies from the bill's criminal penalties, including loss of immunity. Mastagni pointed out that as drafted “knowing and willful” refer only to the intentional decision to cover an officer's face, not intentionally breaking the law. This general intent standard exposes officers to lawsuits for assault, battery, false imprisonment, or malicious prosecution with at least $10,000 damages, even with no actual harm. The bill’s “notwithstanding any other law” clause overrides basic protections for our officers like indemnification under Government Code 825. That exposes officers to personal liability for a good faith mistake about whether an exception applies.  Mistake of law, such as erroneously believing conduct fits a legal exemption, is generally not a defense, as it does not negate the intent to commit the underlying act. 

    SB 627 removes critical immunities that protect officers when making good faith arrests, relying on probable cause, or exercising lawful discretion. The importance of immunity protections cannot be overstated. The California Legislature has enacted numerous civil immunities and privileges, which courts have carefully interpreted and applied for decades. These protections apply only to officers acting in good faith and are forfeited if officers break the law. The Legislature has consistently refused to weaken these protections because they are essential to public safety and enable officers to make arrests, execute search warrants, exercise reasonable discretion, and participate in prosecutions without fear of retaliatory suits.  

    The late addition of language stripping local peace officers of immunity is the single most troubling aspect of S.B. 627. Officers operate under carefully balanced immunities, including Civil Code section 43.55, Penal Code sections 836 and 847, and Government Code section 821.6, which shield them from personal lawsuits when they act in good faith and within the scope of duty. S.B. 627 overrides those protections solely because a face covering is involved, regardless of intent.  

   The bill's exemptions are too narrow and vague to adequately protect local officers, who do not enforce immigration laws. State officers are exempt from the bill's provisions. The severability clause ensures that if the law cannot apply to federal officers, its restrictions will still bind local California law enforcement. This means the Trump administration will likely have an easy win in court, invalidating application of the law to federal officers through preemption challenges. The severability clause in the bill leaves local officers bearing the full brunt of the criminal penalties and loss of immunities.

Enforcement Concerns

   California Senate Bill 627 introduces significant legal challenges for law enforcement officers, particularly concerning potential obstruction violations. The bill's provisions aim to enhance accountability by stripping qualified immunity and good faith defenses if officers are found to have acted with masked intentions. This legislative change underscores the delicate balance officers must maintain between executing their enforcement duties and adhering to the stringent requirements set forth by SB 627.

Federal law provides comprehensive protection for Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents through multiple statutory frameworks. Under 18 U.S.C. § 111, it is a federal crime to forcibly assaults, resists, opposes, impedes, intimidates, or interferes with any person designated in section 1114 of this title while engaged in or on account of the performance of official duties. ICE agents are covered under section 1114 as federal law enforcement officers. The statute imposes escalating penalties: simple obstruction carries up to one year imprisonment, while obstruction involving physical contact or intent to commit another felony increases the maximum penalty to eight years. ICE agents are covered under section 1114 as federal law enforcement officers. The statute imposes escalating imprisonment penalties.

Ironically, federal qualified immunity doctrine would likely protect local officers from civil liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for arresting masked ICE agents, even if the arrest later proves unlawful. The Supreme Court has held that qualified immunity protects government officials unless the contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right. No clearly established federal law prohibits state officers from enforcing state identification requirements against individuals who refuse to identify themselves, even if those individuals are federal agents. 

California immunity statutes would likely provide additional protection. California officers acting under state authority would have reasonable grounds to believe their actions were justified under California Penal Code Section 847(b)(1). The good faith immunity, which protects officers who act with a reasonable belief that their conduct is lawful, also faces limitations under the new bill. The removal of this defense in cases of masked actions places officers in a precarious position, requiring them to exercise heightened diligence and judgment in their interactions with the public.

Conclusion

The legal complexities introduced by SB 627 necessitate a thorough understanding of the bill's provisions and the potential defenses available. Officers must navigate these challenges while ensuring compliance with the law, a task that demands both legal acumen and practical wisdom. As the legal landscape evolves, the ability to effectively balance enforcement responsibilities with the mandates of SB 627 will be crucial for law enforcement professionals in California.

Watch the full Senate Public Safety Committee hearing on SB 627 below.