9NEWS (KUSA) published a piece by Angeline McCall about the Denver City Council advancing a proposed ordinance that would ban law enforcement officers, including federal agents, from wearing face coverings or masks during arrests, detentions, or interrogations in Denver. The story notes the proposal has broad public support, but it is also setting up a real-world enforcement mess that the city’s police union is waving a giant red flag about.
The ordinance, sponsored by Councilwomen Flor Alvidrez and Shontel Lewis, would also require law enforcement personnel to display their name and badge or identification numbers. The article reports that officers who fail to comply would be presumed to be impersonating an officer and subject to criminal penalties. That detail is not a side note. It is the whole problem.
The Bullet Point Brief
- Denver wants to ban masked officers during key enforcement actions. Arrests, detentions, interrogations. Sounds simple until you remember policing is not a tidy committee hearing with name tags.
- The proposal explicitly sweeps in federal agents. Not “encourages.” Not “requests.” It tries to bind federal law enforcement operating inside Denver. That is where the fuse gets lit.
- The police union president is basically saying, “Um, how exactly does this work?” Brian Pacelko, president of the Denver Police Protective Association, said the main concern is enforcement and what happens when Denver officers are expected to take enforcement action against a federal agent. In other words: you are putting cops in the middle of a political stunt.
- The ordinance risks torching partnerships that actually catch bad guys. Pacelko specifically mentions task force cooperation with the FBI, ATF, and DEA, and worries the measure could diminish those working relationships. That is not theoretical. That is day-to-day law enforcement.
- Even the bill admits there are times you need covered faces. It includes exemptions for undercover operations, SWAT and Emergency Response Unit personnel actively performing duties, and situations requiring protective gear for physical safety. Translation: the sponsors know reality exists, they just want a headline anyway.
My Bottom Line
Will someone please stop these virtue-signaling electeds? Please?
Here is a cop, the guy whose job is to run toward danger, saying out loud that this is going to create enforcement conflicts and potentially damage working relationships with federal partners. And the response from the virtue-filled elected class is the same as always: “Thank you for your service, now do this thing that makes your job harder and your world more dangerous.”
Let’s talk about the part that should make every normal person’s eyebrows hit the ceiling. The ordinance would presume noncompliant officers are impersonating an officer and subject them to criminal penalties. So if a federal agent is masked, now a Denver cop is supposed to what, arrest them? Cite them? Start a street-level jurisdictional knife fight because City Council wanted to “lead the way” and get “questions across the country”? That is not leadership. That is a stunt with a badge-shaped bullseye on it.
And yes, I get the public frustration that is driving this. People want transparency and accountability. Fair. But the sponsors are taking a legitimate concern and turning it into a legal and operational booby trap that local officers will be expected to step on.
This is what happens when politicians think law enforcement is a prop. The cops say, “This is a bad idea.” The electeds say, “Hold my virtue.” And then, when something goes sideways, they will be nowhere to be found except behind a microphone, blaming everyone else.
Source: 9 News
Share your thoughts...