Should Officers Be Required to Show Their Faces? A Look at LA County’s Push for Visible Identification

home >> law enforcement news and analysis > Should Officers Be Required to Show Their Faces? A Look at LA County’s Push for Visible Identification

Commentary and Analysis by: Brian Humenuk, COPJOT

⏱️ 3-minute read

Introduction

If you've worn the badge long enough, you've probably been in situations where your name, your face, and even your badge number felt like a target. But you’ve also likely seen the other side—moments where community trust takes a hit because the public can’t tell who we are or what agency we’re from.

Recently, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors proposed an ordinance that would prohibit law enforcement officers—local, state, and even federal—from concealing their identities during public operations. No face coverings. No anonymous uniforms. No blank patches. Just visible names, badges, and agencies for all to see.

So, let’s break this down: What’s really behind this, and what does it mean for the men and women out there doing the job?

What Sparked This Push?

This ordinance didn’t come out of nowhere. It follows a wave of immigration raids and enforcement actions across Southern California, where some officers (mostly federal) were masked, unidentified, and untraceable. Residents and activists raised the alarm: Who are these people pulling citizens out of homes and cars?

County Supervisors like Janice Hahn and Hilda Solis argued that anonymous agents erode trust, escalate fear, and blur the line between official enforcement and intimidation.

They’re not alone—California is already considering a similar state law, and a federal bill called the VISIBLE Act is on the table in Congress.

The Case For Visible ID: Why Transparency Matters

I get it. As someone who’s worked the street and supervised officers, I know how critical public trust is. When officers are masked and nameless, especially in tense situations, it can feel like a show of force rather than a show of law. And to the average citizen—especially someone from a vulnerable community—it can feel less like policing and more like intimidation.

There’s also the issue of accountability. If something goes sideways, who do you report to? If officers aren’t labeled, how does a department investigate a complaint? Even when an officer does everything right, a lack of visible ID leaves room for speculation and mistrust.

Transparency helps reduce friction. It keeps things clean and professional, even when the work isn’t pretty.

The Case Against the Ordinance: Why Some Officers Mask Up

On the flip side, there are real, legitimate safety concerns here. We’re not talking about Halloween masks or balaclavas for fashion. We’re talking about officers working sensitive investigations, anti-gang units, undercover work, or federal immigration raids where retaliation is a real risk.

Ask any narcotics officer who’s been doxxed by a cartel affiliate, or any federal agent who’s had their personal info spread online. Masking and removing nameplates isn’t about hiding from the community—it’s often about protecting officers from being targeted at home.

The ordinance does carve out exceptions for undercover work and tactical teams—but it still raises questions about how much discretion departments would really have.

Can Local Governments Regulate Federal Agents?

That’s another layer of this story. Los Angeles County can pass whatever ordinance it wants, but it likely can’t control federal officers. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Homeland Security, and other federal agencies operate under their own authority. Legal experts say this could spark a court battle over jurisdiction.

In other words, even if LA County passes the rule, federal agents may be exempt, creating more confusion in the field when different teams are operating together.

What Should Departments Be Thinking About?

Whether this ordinance passes or not, here are a few things every law enforcement agency should be doing right now:

1. Review Your Uniform and Identification Policies
   Does your agency require name tags and patches at all times (except for justified exceptions)? Are those policies being followed?

2. Educate Your Officers on Why It Matters
   Make sure your people understand that visible ID isn’t about throwing them under the bus—it’s about maintaining public trust, reducing unnecessary friction, and protecting the profession.

3. Build Crisis Communication Into Your Tactical Plans
   If your agency uses masked units or plain clothes, be ready to explain that to the public. Anticipate the backlash before it happens.

4. Create a Safe Opt-Out for High-Risk Officers
   If an officer has credible safety concerns (doxxing, threats, etc.), there should be a documented exception process that respects both safety and accountability.

Final Thoughts: Trust and Safety Aren’t Opposites

The idea that you have to choose between officer safety and public trust is a false choice. You can build a policy that protects both. It just takes thought, training, and leadership willing to walk the line—not hide from it.

This LA County proposal is going to spark a lot of debate. And while it might not have teeth when it comes to federal agents, it’s sending a message that’s getting louder across the country: Policing needs to be more visible, more transparent, and more human.

Let’s lead that conversation—not just react to it.

Disclaimer:
This article is for informational and educational purposes only. It reflects the author’s analysis and opinion based on publicly reported events. COPJOT does not claim ownership of external news content and does not reproduce full copyrighted material. All rights to external content remain with their respective owners.