A Denver City Council committee on Wednesday advanced a proposed ordinance banning law enforcement officers, including federal immigration agents, from covering their faces during an arrest or detainment or inside a city facility. 

The proposed ordinance also establishes a minimum standard for visible identification during law enforcement actions in Denver and would require officers to provide their name and badge number when asked.

It is among a slew of measures that Democrats are considering at the local and state levels in response to stepped-up enforcement action by the Trump administration, though the operations in Colorado have so far been limited in comparison to Minnesota and other American cities.

Broadly speaking, some Democrats have begun to position the state and jurisdictions they dominate in a more confrontational stance. The attorney general, for example, wants residents to report alleged misconduct by federal agents via an online tool.

At the state Capitol, Colorado legislators are considering a proposal to allow a “cause of action” by individuals injured in an immigration enforcement activity.

The proposed ordinance in Denver now moves to the full City Council for consideration.

Officers who violate the ordinance would face penalties of up to $99 or 300 days in jail, with discretion for citations.

The bill will not restrict law enforcement from carrying out undercover operations, SWAT duties, tactical operations or emergency response, such as those undertaken by the Sheriff’s Emergency Response Unit, Councilmember Flor Advidrez told members of the Health and Safety Committee. 

Additionally, law enforcement officers would not be prevented from wearing helmets, transparent face guards, medical masks, protective gear or religious head coverings, such as a hijab.

City officials in favor of the proposal argued it would address public safety fears and increase transparency. Meanwhile, some earlier raised the complications arising from local police confronting federal agents while conducting operations here.

“Our main concern with the proposed ordinance is enforcement, and how that’s going to affect the Denver police officers if they do have to take an enforcement action against a federal agent. The concern is also possible conflict with other federal agents,” Brian Pacelko, president of the Denver Police Protective Association, said during Wednesday’s hearing.

He added, “As you know, we do not work actively with ICE in any fashion, but we do assist with task forces with the FBI, ATF and DEA, and we don’t want to see these partnerships get diminished.”

Both the Colorado government and the city of Denver have adopted laws barring cooperation with immigration authorities, though political leaders insist neither state nor municipality is a “sanctuary” jurisdiction.

Although committee members agreed some minor details with the bill’s language need to be ironed out, they indicated urgency in moving the proposal forward.

“ICE is already here, routinely breaking the law through constitutional rights violations, and we know it’s only a matter of time until they attempt to search here on the scale of Minnesota,” said Nate Stone, a volunteer with the Colorado Rapid Response Network, a group that monitors ICE activity and documents arrest incidents.

“What is in front of you today is the smallest of asks — accountability,” Stone told the committee. “I’m asking the council to take the steps necessary that if I’m shot in the process of trying to defend my community, my family deserves to know who pulled the trigger.” 

“This ordinance provides clarity, not conflict, and enforcement of this law should not be taken as a defiance to public authority, but rather an expression of local leadership here in Denver,” Uriel Espinoza, another speaker, said during the meeting’s public comment period. “It ensures that the responsibility should rest with the city, so that local officers are not left navigating legal uncertainty on their own.”

The devil is in the details, city legal officials said.

Jon Griffin, the city’s deputy legislative counsel, previously said Denver police would be responsible for enforcing the ban against federal or other agents who may violate it.

Denver is not the first to consider such measures in light of recent high-profile federal immigration enforcement operations.

California became the first state to ban most law enforcement officers, including federal immigration agents, from covering their faces while conducting official business, under a bill signed in September by Gov. Gavin Newsom and criticized by Trump administration officials.

A federal judge on Monday struck down the California law, saying it does not apply equally to all law enforcement officers and “unlawfully discriminates against federal officers.”

The ban is a direct response to recent immigration raids in Los Angeles, where federal agents wore masks while making mass arrests. The raids prompted days of protest and led President Donald Trump to deploy National Guard troops and Marines to the area.

In Houston, City Councilmember Edward Pollard asked the city’s U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement field office to adopt a policy prohibiting agents from wearing face coverings, The Houston Chronicle reported on Jan. 5.

Last year, in Louisville, Kentucky, its City Council narrowly rejected a similar ban on face coverings.

Denver’s legal officials said the proposed ordinance must be able to withstand federal scrutiny if challenged.

“Law enforcement at any level of government should be held accountable to the public they serve,” Jon Ewing, a spokesperson for Denver Mayor Mike Johnston, told The Denver Gazette in an email. “At bare minimum, that means residents have a right to know who is detaining them and why they are doing so. The City Attorney’s Office will work with (the City) Council to ensure the bill meets all constitutional requirements and at that time it will receive Mayor Johnston’s full support.”

Trump administration officials have defended the use of masks, saying immigration agents face strident and increasing harassment in public and online as they carry out federal deportation operations. Obscuring their identities is necessary for the safety of the agents and their families, officials contend.