Bill banning police masks that conceal identities gets rough treatment at first hearing
- Mark Sabbatini
- 7 hours ago
- 5 min read
Rep. Sara Hannan, D-Juneau, says HB 250 seeks to ensure public trust; skeptical legislators ask about threats to officers and their families during enforcement actions under Trump
By Mark Sabbatini
Juneau Independent
A Juneau legislator’s bill to ban police officers from wearing masks or disguises intended to conceal their identity saw debate similar to such policies pursued elsewhere during its first hearing Tuesday.
House Bill 250 by Rep. Sara Hannan, a Democrat, told the House State Affairs Committee the proposal is a pro-law enforcement measure intended to promote public trust.
“When officers conceal their faces they compromise transparency, communication and the public's perception of accountability,” she said. “Masks get in the way of de-escalation efforts — in fact, they do the opposite. They increase fear and intimidation in already tense circumstances. Being unable to see an officer's expression can lead to misunderstandings and potentially needlessly tragic outcomes.”
Also, Hannan said, “When officers can't be identified the risk that someone might impersonate law enforcement to commit crimes increases.”
Exemptions are allowed for undercover officers and for health purposes, including respirators to safeguard against smoke. An amendment to the bill also exempts masks to protect against cold-weather exposure.
Wearing a mask as a peace officer under circumstances not covered by the exemptions is a class B misdemeanor punishable by up to 90 days in jail and a $2,000 fine.
Such bans have been proposed in multiple states due to the Trump administration’s deployment of federal officers to numerous cities, resulting in widespread detentions of people placed in unmarked vehicles and violent confrontations. Tensions escalated after two U.S. citizens were killed by federal officers in Minneapolis last month under circumstances falsely portrayed by the Trump administration.
A federal judge on Monday blocked California, the first state to enact such a ban, from enforcing the law, declaring it unlawfully discriminates against federal agents because it does not equally apply to state law enforcement. Hannan said her bill applies equally to all officers regardless of agency.
Written testimony opposing Hannan’s bill was submitted before Tuesday’s hearing by Eleanor Vinson, a Juneau resident who said her children had to be escorted to and from school when her husband’s work as an officer involved arresting members of an Idaho-based motorcycle gang. She stated "with the international gangs and drug cartels, it is even more frightening."
"Now Law Enforcement Officers are dealing with even more dangerous situations, and you want them to
have less protection?" Vinson wrote. "Instead of playing into the hands of drug dealers and other criminals, please try understanding what it takes to be a Law Enforcement Officer and what they may face at any time. The people who want the face masks off the Officers — why? Are they breaking the law?"
Among legislators challenging Hannan’s bill was Rep. Kevin McCabe, R-Big Lake, who cited an unsubstantiated claim by President Donald Trump last September that attacks on U.S. Immigration and Customs and Enforcement officers are up 1000% since last June. Court records show about a 25% rise in charges for assault against federal officers through mid-September compared to a year ago, according to media reports.
McCabe’s concerns focused on the “increase in the assaults on not only officers, but their families because they have been able to be identified, mostly because of social media.”
“The people that are identifying them don't even have to be there at the protest, which is why officers are masking and hiding their identity,” he said. “So how does HB 250 address the risk of forcing officers — they didn't sign up for this, they didn't sign up for their families to be attacked — to expose their faces. I mean, would you be open to an amendment that made it maybe a felony to dox an officer, and attack or threaten their families?”
“I believe you're talking about criminal behaviors that are already criminal,” Hannan replied.
McCabe also noted Anchorage Police Department officers, among others in Alaska, are required to have badges and identification tags, and questioned why a mask should be illegal if the officers can thus be identified. In response to a subsequent question about whether ICE officers have the same standard, Hannan said her bill isn’t targeting that agency.
“This is targeted at Alaska law enforcement to make sure that we do not have an evolving police standard in Alaska reflecting what may be a federal effort,” she said. However, the law would apply to all officers operating in the state, including ICE officers deployed here.
Another legislator challenging the bill, Rep. Sarah Vance, R-Homer, asked Hannan if any circumstances have occurred in Alaska that justify banning police masks for the sake of putting people’s minds at ease.
“They're concerned about what they're seeing on the news, but I haven't heard how this brings them harm,” Vance said. “But on the flip side with law enforcement, (the U.S. Department of Homeland Security) has proven that their officers have been docked. There has been harm to them and their families. And so my question to you is as you weigh out how this is going to impact not only your constituents, but also the law enforcement that are your constituents, where's the justification? Because to me it feels like you're prioritizing comfort over actual harm that is occurring.”
Hannan reiterated her intent to prevent the possibility of incidents like those creating unrest in other states from occurring.
“If my police department proposed that all of their behaviors and interactions were going to be masked, and their identities were not going to be known to the community, and we were going to have secret police, I would be deeply concerned and we’d be far behind the curve,” she said.
Hannan said in most parts of Alaska officers are neighbors, and “we want to continue to build that community dialog and trust between all of the members of our community, whether your neighbor is law enforcement and licensed or not law enforcement. And I think that any efforts to change that puts us down a road where our trust in our peace officers in Alaska is eroded.”
Vance asked Hannan if she has discussed how the bill might affect officer recruitment and retention with the state Department of Public Safety, local police departments or other law enforcement agencies. The Juneau lawmaker said she hasn’t.
The bill is scheduled to be heard by the committee again Thursday, and, at Vance’s request, the Alaska Police Standards Council will be invited to offer testimony.
• Contact Mark Sabbatini at editor@juneauindependent.com or (907) 957-2306.
