- “This lawsuit is about whether the federal government can continue to terrorize our communities in secrecy.” – Cristine Soto DeBerry, executive director of Prosecutors Alliance Action
By Vanguard Staff
LOS ANGELES — Prosecutors Alliance Action is urging a federal judge to reject a U.S. Department of Justice lawsuit that seeks to block California’s new No Secret Police Act, warning that masked and unidentifiable federal agents undermine public trust, weaken prosecutions and threaten public safety across the state.
In an amicus brief filed this week in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Prosecutors Alliance Action argues that the federal challenge should fail because the state has a strong and legitimate interest in requiring transparency and accountability from any law enforcement officers policing California communities.
The No Secret Police Act, also known as Senate Bill 627, is a first-in-the-nation law that prohibits law enforcement officers from wearing masks while carrying out policing activities in California. The measure, which takes effect Jan. 1, includes explicit exemptions for active undercover operations and investigations. Prosecutors Alliance Action was a co-sponsor of the legislation.
The Justice Department’s lawsuit also seeks to block a related statute, the No Vigilantes Act, Senate Bill 805, which requires law enforcement agents operating in California to clearly identify themselves while conducting operations. That law took effect Sept. 20, 2025.
In its filing, Prosecutors Alliance Action contends that the recent rise of masked and unidentifiable federal agents operating in plainclothes and unmarked vehicles has created fear and confusion among residents, led to mistaken reports of kidnappings, and damaged the credibility of local law enforcement agencies that are often forced to respond to or de-escalate these encounters.
“Whether these masked and unidentifiable federal agents intend it or not, their anonymity, which evokes the repressive tactics of autocratic regimes, sows fear and confusion in our communities,” the brief states. “By undermining public trust in law enforcement generally, masked and plainclothes federal immigration agents undermine public trust in prosecutions generally. California has a strong interest in preventing that from happening.”
Cristine Soto DeBerry, executive director of Prosecutors Alliance Action, said the lawsuit raises fundamental questions about public safety and democratic policing.
“This lawsuit is about whether the federal government can continue to terrorize our communities in secrecy,” Soto DeBerry said. “Prosecutors know that when people don’t trust law enforcement, cases fall apart, witnesses disappear and public safety suffers. California has the right — and the responsibility — to demand transparency and accountability from anyone policing its residents.”
The amicus brief emphasizes that requiring officers to unmask and identify themselves does not impose a meaningful burden on law enforcement. California peace officers have been required for decades to display identifying information while performing their duties, the group notes, and federal regulations already require immigration officers to identify themselves when it is practical and safe to do so.
According to the filing, the federal government’s claim that these laws would interfere with enforcement operations is exaggerated. Both SB 627 and SB 805 include exemptions for undercover work, and similar identification requirements have not prevented state or federal law enforcement agencies from carrying out arrests, investigations or prosecutions in the past.
Prosecutors Alliance Action also warns that anonymity in policing has enabled criminal impersonation. The brief cites warnings from federal authorities, including the FBI and the U.S. Marshals Service, about a rise in crimes committed by individuals posing as federal agents — including robberies, kidnappings and assaults — made easier when real officers operate without visible identification.
“These criminal impersonations make it difficult for the community to distinguish between legitimate officers conducting lawful law enforcement action and imposters engaging in criminal activity, which damages trust between the local community and law enforcement officers,” the brief states.
Beyond public safety, the prosecutors’ group argues that masked policing creates legal and ethical problems for criminal cases. Anonymous officers complicate the disclosure of evidence, the identification of witnesses and the ability of prosecutors to meet their constitutional obligations, particularly in suppression hearings and cases involving alleged civil rights violations.
The brief also describes how local police departments are frequently pulled into tense situations created by unmarked federal operations, including responding to 911 calls reporting apparent kidnappings. These incidents, the group argues, increase strain on local law enforcement and blur the lines between state and federal authority, further eroding community trust.
Prosecutors Alliance Action is made up of current and former local, state and federal prosecutors and other criminal justice system stakeholders. The organization says its members have direct experience with how mistrust of law enforcement affects charging decisions, witness cooperation and jury perceptions.
“When charging cases based on police investigations, prosecutors vouch for their integrity,” the brief states. “Public trust in the outcomes of criminal prosecutions thus depends on the public’s perception that our law enforcement officers are policing with honesty and integrity.”
The Justice Department is seeking a preliminary injunction to halt enforcement of both laws while the case proceeds. Prosecutors Alliance Action is asking the court to deny that request, arguing that the balance of equities and the public interest favor California’s efforts to restore transparency in policing.
The case remains pending in the Central District of California, where the court has not yet ruled on the federal government’s request to block the laws from taking effect.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
