Senate Bill 627, also known as the No Secret Police Act (“Act”) was signed by Governor Newsom on September 20, 2025. The Act takes effect on January 1, 2026; an urgency clause in a prior version of the legislation that would have made it effective immediately was not included in the final version.
Penal Code Section 185.5 – Prohibition on Facial Coverings
Newly enacted Penal Code Section 185.5 prohibits peace officers employed by a city, county, or other local agency, federal law enforcement officers, and law enforcement officers of another state, from wearing a facial covering that conceals or obscures their facial identity while performing their duties in California. The Act excludes SWAT team duty, authorized undercover operations, tactical operations where protective gear is required for physical safety, and where applicable occupational health and safety regulations require.
The definition of facial covering does not include the following:
- Translucent or clear masks
- Motorcycle helmets
- Eyewear to protect against retinal weapons
- N95 medical or surgical masks
- Breathing apparatuses necessary to protect against toxins, gas, and smoke
- Masks to protect against inclement weather, or
- Masks for underwater operations.
Penal Code section 185.5 makes it a misdemeanor to knowingly and willfully violate this prohibition. Further, any officer found to have committed certain enumerated torts while wearing a facial covering in knowing and willful violation of the statute is not entitled to assert any privilege or immunity in a civil action, and is liable for the greater of actual damages or statutory damages of no less than $10,000.
Government Code Section 7289 – Mandatory Agency Policy
The Act also creates Government Code section 7289, which requires any law enforcement agency operating in California to maintain and publicly post a written policy limiting the use of facial coverings by July 1, 2026.
The policy must contain a requirement that all sworn personnel not use a facial covering when performing their duties, with narrowly tailored exemptions for:
- Active undercover operations or assignment authorized by supervising personnel or court order
- Tactical operations where protective gear is required for physical safety
- Applicable law governing occupational health and safety
- Protection of identity during prosecution, and
- Applicable law requiring legal accommodations.
Agency policies must also include a “purpose statement” affirming the agency’s commitment to all of the following:
- Transparency, accountability, and public trust,
- Restricting the use of facial covering to specific, clearly defined and limited circumstances, and
- The principle that generalized and undifferentiated fear and apprehension about officer safety shall not be sufficient to justify the use of facial coverings.
Even where an exemption applies, the policy must require that opaque facial coverings shall only be used when no other reasonable alternative exists, and the necessity is documented.
Agency policies must also prohibit a supervisor from knowingly allowing a peace officer under their supervision to violate state law or agency policy regarding face coverings.
A written policy that meets these minimum requirements shall be deemed consistent with the Penal Code section 185.5, unless a verified written challenge to its legality is submitted by a member of the public. Upon receipt of the verified written challenge, the agency shall be afforded 90 days to correct any deficiencies, and if it fails to do so, the complaining party may challenge the written policy in court.
The criminal penalties in Penal Code section 185.5 will not apply to any law enforcement officer if they act in their capacity as an employee of the agency and the agency maintains and publicly posts a written policy no later than July 1, 2026.
Agencies are encouraged to get an early start on drafting their policies. The requisite agency policies will likely be subject to impacts meet and confer requirements with labor groups representing sworn employees, specifically in relation to workplace safety as well as other impacted terms and conditions of employment. Agencies should plan ahead to ensure that the impacts meet and confer process is completed before July 1, 2026. If an agency fails to have a compliant policy by that date, then a member of the public or an oversight body or governing authority can challenge that deficiency. Further, timely adoption of a policy can protect an agency’s officers from the criminal provisions of Penal Code section 185.5.
Further Legislation and Court Challenges Expected
In his signing message, Governor Newsom requested that the Legislature adopt follow-up legislation when it returns in January to ensure that law enforcement operations are not compromised. The Governor specifically stated that he reads the statute to permit the use of motorcycle or other safety helmets, sunglasses, or “other standard law enforcement gear not designed or used for the purpose of hiding anyone’s identity,” but requested that the Legislature provide additional exemptions for legitimate law enforcement activities and remove unnecessary liability for officers who carry out their duties in good faith. He further stated that follow-up legislation should remove any uncertainty or ambiguities around its scope.
The federal government is expected to challenge the statute’s applicability to federal officers, specifically whether the state has the constitutional authority to impose restrictions on federal law enforcement. Shortly after the bill was signed into law, officials with the Department of Homeland Security and Department of Justice indicated their agencies will not comply with the mask ban, calling it unconstitutional under the Supremacy Clause of the United States (U.S.) Constitution and stating that the United States Congress must take formal action to subject federal agents to the no-masking provision of SB 627.
This brings to the forefront the question of the legal ability of local peace officers to enforce the new law against federal law enforcement officers. Legal experts are divided on the constitutionality of the law’s restrictions on federal agents, and this issue will play out in the courts. Some legal scholars assert that state and local authorities have no power to arrest federal officers for official actions. This assertion is based on the seminal U.S. Supreme Court case In re Neagle, which involved a Deputy U.S. Marshal fatally shooting a former California Supreme Court justice who was physically attacking a sitting United States Supreme Court Justice. The Court ruled that the Supremacy Clause grants federal officers immunity from state prosecution when acting in their official capacity under a law of the United States. A likely effect of the Supremacy Clause is that a uniform regulation enacted by a State cannot bind federal agents. (In re Neagle (1890) 135 U.S. 1 at 75).
The statutory text states that the provisions of the Act are severable, so that if any provision, such as applicability to federal officers, is held invalid, the rest of the provisions will remain in effect. LCW will provide an update if any court decision impacts the applicability of these laws to local agencies.
Please reach out to your trusted legal advisors with any questions and for more guidance on SB 627.