(a)By July 1, 2026, a law enforcement agency operating in California shall maintain and publicly post a written policy regarding the use of facial coverings.
(b)The policy shall include, but not be limited to, each of the following:
(1)A purpose statement affirming the agency’s commitment to all of the following:
(A)Transparency, accountability, and public trust.
(B)Restricting the use of facial coverings to specific, clearly defined, and limited circumstances.
(C)The principle that generalized and undifferentiated fear and apprehension about officer safety shall not be sufficient to justify the use of facial coverings.
(2)A requirement that all sworn personnel not use a facial covering when performing their duties.
(3)A list of narrowly tailored exemptions for the following:
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
(a)
By July 1, 2026, a law enforcement agency operating in California shall maintain and publicly post a written policy regarding the use of facial coverings.
(b)
The policy shall include, but not be limited to, each of the following:
(1)
A purpose statement affirming the agency’s commitment to all of the following:
(A)
Transparency, accountability, and public trust.
(B)
Restricting the use of facial coverings to specific, clearly defined, and limited circumstances.
(C)
The principle that generalized and undifferentiated fear and apprehension about officer safety shall not be sufficient to justify the use of facial coverings.
(2)
A requirement that all sworn personnel not use a facial covering when performing their duties.
(3)
A list of narrowly tailored exemptions for the following:
(A)
Active undercover operations or assignments authorized by supervising personnel or
court order.
(B)
Tactical operations where protective gear is required for physical safety.
(C)
Applicable law governing occupational health and safety.
(D)
Protection of identity during prosecution.
(E)
Applicable law governing reasonable accommodations.
(4)
Opaque facial coverings shall only be used when no other reasonable alternative exists and the necessity is documented.
(5)
Pursuant to the policy, a supervisor shall not knowingly allow a peace officer under their supervision to violate state law
or agency policy limiting the use of a facial covering.
(c)
A policy adopted pursuant to this section shall be deemed consistent with Section 185.5 of the Penal Code unless a verified written challenge to its legality is submitted to the head of the agency by a member of the public, an oversight body, or a local governing authority, at which time the agency shall be afforded 90 days to correct any deficiencies in the policy. If, after 90 days, the agency has failed to adequately address the complaint, the complaining party may proceed to a court of competent jurisdiction for a judicial determination of the
agency’s exemption pursuant to subdivision (f) of Section 185.5 of the Penal Code. The agency’s policy and its employees’ exemptions shall remain in effect unless a court rules the agency’s policy is not in compliance with subdivision (f) of Section 185.5 of the Penal Code and all potential appeals to higher courts have been exhausted by the agency.
(d)
For the purposes of this section, the following terms have the following meanings:
(1)
“Facial covering” has the same meaning as in subdivision (b) of Section 185.5 of the Penal Code.
(2)
“Law enforcement agency” means any of the following:
(A)
Any entity of a city, county, or other local agency, that employs a peace officer described in Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 830) of Title 3 of Part 2 of the Penal Code.
(B)
Any law enforcement agency of another state.
(C)
Any federal law enforcement agency.