HB 2173
In CommitteeHouse
Law enf. face coverings
Concerning the use of face coverings by law enforcement officers.
This status may be delayed. See Action History below for the latest updates.
How does a bill become law?
- Introduced: The bill is filed and assigned a number.
- Committee: A subject-matter committee holds hearings, takes public testimony, and decides whether to advance the bill.
- Floor Vote: The full chamber (House or Senate) debates and votes on the bill.
- Opposite Chamber: The bill repeats the committee and floor vote process in the other chamber.
- Governor: The Governor reviews the bill and decides whether to sign or veto it.
- Signed: The bill has been signed into law.
AI Analysis
This bill bans Washington law enforcement officers from wearing facial coverings like masks or hoods while interacting with the public, requiring them to be clearly identifiable instead—except during undercover work or tactical operations. It also gives people detained in violation of this rule the right to sue the officer and seek damages.
- Prohibits law enforcement officers from wearing facial coverings (e.g., balaclavas, tactical masks, ski masks) while interacting with the public during official duties.
- Allows exceptions for undercover officers during active operations and for protective gear used by SWAT teams during tactical operations.
- Requires officers to be reasonably identifiable by name or other visible identifying information on their uniform.
- Permits individuals detained in violation of this rule to sue the officer in their official capacity and seek damages, attorney fees, or other court remedies if they prevail.
- Clarifies that translucent face shields, medical masks (e.g., N95), and helmets are not considered facial coverings under this law.
Who is affected
- Law enforcement officers — Law enforcement officers must wear uniforms with clearly visible identifying information (like name or badge number) when interacting with the public and generally cannot wear facial coverings—except during undercover operations or tactical situations.
- Members of the public (especially those detained or interacting with officers) — Members of the public may sue an officer in their official capacity if detained while the officer was wearing a facial covering in violation of the law, and could recover damages, attorney fees, or other court-ordered relief if they win the case.
- Law enforcement agencies — Agencies must ensure officers are identifiable during public interactions, which may require changes to uniform standards, training, and equipment policies.
- Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) and tactical unit officers — SWAT and other specialized units may continue using protective facial gear during high-risk operations, so their current equipment and protocols remain largely unchanged in those contexts.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for benefits
Potential Benefits (5)
Grants individuals detained in violation of the law the right to sue the officer and recover damages, attorney fees, and injunctive relief—creating a direct accountability mechanism to deter misuse of facial coverings and protect against arbitrary or retaliatory detention.
Rights & LibertiesPeopleRef: Sec. 1(5)Requires officers to be reasonably identifiable during public interactions, reinforcing transparency and trust by enabling individuals to identify and report misconduct—this strengthens civil rights protections and reduces anonymity that can enable abuse.
Rights & LibertiesPeopleRef: Sec. 1(2) & (3)Permits undercover operatives and tactical units to retain facial coverings during active operations—preserving necessary operational security and officer safety in high-risk scenarios without compromising the transparency mandate for routine interactions.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1(4)(a)Explicitly excludes medical masks (e.g., N95) and translucent face shields, allowing officers to protect themselves and the public during health emergencies or hazardous conditions without violating the ban—balancing safety and transparency.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1(1)(b)(ii)Reduces the risk of dehumanization and disproportionate use of force by preventing officers from concealing their identities during routine public encounters—this supports procedural justice and may reduce community distrust, especially in marginalized neighborhoods.
Rights & LibertiesPeopleRef: Sec. 1(3)
Potential Concerns (5)
Creates a new civil cause of action for individuals detained while officers wore facial coverings, which may lead to increased litigation and chilling of legitimate law enforcement activity—even in ambiguous or high-risk situations where officers reasonably believed coverings were necessary for safety or operational secrecy.
Rights & LibertiesPeopleRef: Sec. 1(5)Prohibits facial coverings during routine public interactions, but allows exceptions for tactical units and undercover operations—creating inconsistency in accountability and potentially undermining officer safety in rapidly evolving situations where facial concealment may be necessary to prevent identification and retaliation.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1(3) & (4)(b)Requires agencies to ensure officers are “reasonably identifiable” by name or other visible ID, imposing administrative and equipment costs (e.g., updated uniforms, training, compliance audits) on local governments, especially smaller agencies with limited budgets.
Local GovernmentLean peopleRef: Sec. 1(2)Exposes officers to personal liability in civil suits (though technically against them in *official* capacity, qualified immunity may not fully shield them), potentially deterring recruitment and retention—especially among newer or younger officers—due to increased legal exposure for split-second decisions in dynamic encounters.
Business & EmploymentPeopleRef: Sec. 1(5)May reduce effectiveness of crowd control during protests or mass incidents, where officers have historically used face coverings to prevent targeting and retaliation—potentially increasing risk to both officers and bystanders in volatile settings.
Public SafetyLean peopleRef: Sec. 1(3)
Who Is Most Affected
Members of the public—particularly those in high-police-visibility neighborhoods, protest participants, and people with prior negative encounters with law enforcement—are most likely to benefit from increased transparency and legal recourse if detained under questionable circumstances. The right to sue and recover damages is a meaningful tool for redress, especially for those without resources to challenge unlawful detention today.
Rank-and-file officers face increased exposure to civil liability and potential reputational harm if sued—even if ultimately successful in court—while agencies must invest in compliance (e.g., uniform changes, training). However, the exception for tactical and undercover work preserves operational flexibility for specialized units, reducing risk for those roles.
Agencies will incur new costs for uniform modifications, training, and potential legal defense—though these are likely modest compared to liability payouts. Smaller agencies may struggle more with implementation, while larger departments may absorb costs more easily. The bill does not provide state funding for compliance, shifting burden to local budgets.
SWAT and tactical officers retain full discretion to use protective facial gear during high-risk operations, so their current protocols and equipment remain largely unchanged. The exception is explicit and well-defined, minimizing disruption to their mission.
Civil rights attorneys and legal aid organizations may see increased demand for representation in civil suits against officers. While this creates new work, it also expands access to justice for individuals who previously had no viable legal remedy for unlawful detention under coverings.