Los Angeles County supervisors superior an ordinance Tuesday that might prohibit legislation enforcement officers — together with immigration enforcement brokers — from sporting masks whereas working in unincorporated components of the county.
The ordinance would additionally require all legislation enforcement officers to put on identification and clarify their company affiliation.
The ban is a response to considerations from residents over unidentifiable brokers conducting immigration enforcement operations throughout the area. Since raids started this summer season, armed federal brokers — their faces hidden by neck gaiters or ski masks — have repeatedly hopped out of unmarked vans and apprehended individuals from avenue corners, automobile washes and Dwelling Depot parking tons. Officers typically refuse to establish themselves as working with federal immigration enforcement.
Authorized specialists say federal immigration brokers wouldn’t be required to comply with a county masks ban. The county’s high lawyer, Dawyn Harrison, has mentioned she suspects the federal authorities will doubtless argue that the county legislation violates the Structure, which states that federal legislation takes priority over conflicting native statutes.
“If this results in a struggle with the federal authorities within the courts, I believe it’s a struggle price having,” mentioned Supervisor Janice Hahn, who spearheaded the ban.
Division of Homeland Safety Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin has mentioned immigration brokers have to disguise themselves to keep away from having their names publicized or being “doxed.”
The movement handed 4-0, with Supervisor Kathryn Barger abstaining. Per county coverage, the ban have to be permitted as soon as extra, and the vote is scheduled for subsequent week. The ban would go into impact in January 2026.
“In the event you carry the ability of a badge right here, you have to be seen, accountable and identifiable to the individuals you serve,” mentioned Supervisor Lindsey Horvath, who co-authored the movement.
Barger had beforehand questioned the purpose of a movement that might virtually actually land them in courtroom.
“My concern is we’re bringing in a movement that’s most likely going to finish up in courtroom, that I query is even authorized for us to do,” Barger mentioned in July.
