California Advances SB 805 and SB 627 to End Secret Police Tactics

(CALIFORNIA) California lawmakers have approved two high-profile transparency bills aimed at immigration enforcement: SB 805, the No Vigilantes Act, and SB 627, the No Secret Police Act. As of September 13, 2025, both measures have cleared the Assembly and Senate and sit on the Governor’s desk. The Governor has until October 13, 2025 to sign or veto them. Supporters say the bills respond to growing reports of unidentified or masked officers—often described by witnesses as federal immigration agents—detaining people in public spaces, sowing fear in immigrant neighborhoods across the United States 🇺🇸.

Legislative status and what the bills do

SB 805, known as the No Vigilantes Act, would require federal, state, and local law enforcement personnel operating in California—including ICE, Border Patrol, and Homeland Security agents—to display visible identification (such as a name or badge number) whenever they perform their duties. The bill makes exceptions for undercover work. Violations would be a misdemeanor, punishable by up to six months in county jail, a $1,000 fine, or both. The bill also bars bounty hunters from taking part in any immigration enforcement activities, a measure backers say protects the public from private actors who may not follow due process.

SB 627, the No Secret Police Act, would prohibit officers from covering their faces with masks or similar gear during operations unless there is a genuine health, safety, or tactical reason. According to its author, Senator Scott Wiener, the bill addresses cases in which officers appeared in ski masks or balaclavas during arrests or crowd operations. SB 627 includes criminal penalties and civil remedies for violations, allowing affected individuals to seek damages. If signed, observers say it would be the first statewide anti-masking measure for law enforcement to reach final approval in the U.S.

Both bills passed with strong Democratic support. Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas captured the intent in direct terms: “Show some ID, masks off. We will fight as long as it takes to protect California.” Senator Wiener added, “Law enforcement should never be easily confused with the guy in the ski mask robbing a liquor store, yet that’s what’s happening with ICE’s extreme masking.”

Why California moved now

Lawmakers introduced the bills in response to growing concern about enforcement tactics that leave people unsure who is detaining them and why.

• Community groups report raids without visible identification and the use of face coverings that hide officers’ identities.
• That practice complicates complaints after arrests and weakens public trust in law enforcement.
• Supporters cite instances of impersonation and warn of theft, extortion, and other crimes by people posing as officers.

Cristine Soto DeBerry of Prosecutors Alliance Action called SB 627 “essential” for accountability and community trust, while Hector Pereyra of the Inland Coalition for Immigrant Justice praised both bills as a “major victory for immigrant communities.” MALDEF’s Hector Villagra highlighted the risk of impersonation and stressed transparency as a guard against abuse.

California has a history of limiting cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. For example, the California Values Act (SB 54, adopted in 2018) restricts certain information sharing with federal authorities. Advocates say the new measures go further by requiring visible identification and clear faces during operations, giving the public a better chance to confirm an officer’s authority.

Supporters also point to recent Supreme Court developments they say have allowed ICE to detain people based on ethnicity or language, heightening fears of racial profiling. In that environment, lawmakers argue, it’s more important than ever to ensure officers are clearly identifiable.

Practical effects if signed

If both bills are signed:

• They would take effect on January 1, 2026.
• Agencies would have to review and update protocols so officers display identification unless undercover.
• Mask use would be limited to situations with clear health, safety, or tactical reasons.
• Training programs would need updating to explain new rules and penalties.

Law enforcement groups and some Republican lawmakers argue the rules could complicate federal operations—especially during high-risk arrests or crowd events—because tactical gear (including face coverings) can be protective. Supporters counter that the bills already include exceptions for genuine safety needs and that visible ID and faces are basic steps to avoid abuse and protect constitutional rights.

For immigrant families, the proposals aim to reduce fear during encounters with police or federal agents. Community organizations say masked officers and hidden name tags have made parents afraid to walk children to school or go to work. When people are too afraid or confused to report crimes, neighborhoods become less safe. Advocates say these bills help restore trust by making it easier to identify who is acting under color of law and who is not.

Rights, remedies, and enforcement details

Key provisions and consequences:

• Under SB 805, the public would gain the specific right to request identification from anyone claiming to be law enforcement if there is reasonable suspicion of impersonation or related crime.
• SB 805’s penalties (misdemeanor, up to six months jail, $1,000 fine) are intended as a deterrent.
• SB 627 allows individuals to seek civil damages for violations, adding a route for accountability beyond criminal penalties.
• The bills bar bounty hunters from participating in immigration enforcement.

For federal agencies operating in California, supporters say the measures apply as long as they do not directly conflict with federal law. Critics predict legal challenges on federal preemption grounds; supporters note California has long set workplace, privacy, and civil rights rules for operations within the state and say they are prepared to defend these standards in court.

Examples of acceptable mask use if signed

Supporters and drafters suggest agencies create clear internal policies with examples of when masks are permitted:

1. Health:
   • Mask use during disease outbreaks or when exposed to hazardous substances.
2. Safety:
   • Coverings to protect officers from targeted threats while keeping ID visible.
3. Tactical:
   • Short-term coverings during a dangerous entry, followed by prompt removal when the scene is secured.

Community advocates say codifying such standards reduces room for abuse and gives residents a way to challenge improper use.

Impact on private actors and local practice

• SB 805 prohibits bounty hunters from any role in immigration enforcement, aiming to reduce violent confrontations and unlawful detentions by private actors.
• Some local police chiefs already require visible identification and discourage mask use except in limited cases; the bills would make those practices uniform statewide.
• Agencies would need to track compliance, refresh training, and prepare for union negotiations to address safety exceptions.
• Violations could bring both criminal and financial exposure for officers and their agencies.

Guidance for residents and communities

If the bills become law, attorneys recommend simple steps to document any encounter:

• Note the officer’s visible name or badge number.
• Record whether a mask was used and the stated reason.
• Write down any statements about authority (why the officers are there, what they claim to be doing).

That documentation can help in later legal review, including potential civil claims under SB 627. Legal aid clinics plan community sessions to explain rights under the new measures, focusing on calm, safe interactions when officers appear at a home or workplace.

Broader implications and next steps

Supporters say the stakes extend beyond immigration enforcement—ID and limited mask use affect protests, traffic stops, and interactions at public buildings. They argue that these norms are basic policing steps that should apply broadly. Critics warn that strict rules could give organized criminals more information about officers; backers reply that exceptions cover high-threat situations and that visible identification is fundamental in a democracy.

California officials direct residents to the state’s public portal for full bill texts and status updates at the California Legislative Information website: California Legislative Information website. Offices for Speaker Robert Rivas and Senator Scott Wiener are also fielding questions. The Speaker’s office lists Nick Miller, Communications Director, at 916-319-2029 and [email protected].

Both measures reflect a broader trend as other states and Congress consider similar proposals. If California’s approach is signed into law and survives expected challenges, it could become a model for aligning immigration enforcement with community trust. For now, the clock runs to October 13, 2025. If the Governor signs, agencies will have just weeks to prepare for the January 1, 2026 start date, update training, and inform the public.

For families who have long felt watched but not seen, lawmakers say the message is simple: the badge should be visible, and the face behind it should be too.