By David Berez
New Jersey legislators are racing to follow California’s disastrous example by criminalizing one of law enforcement’s most basic safety measures: protecting their identities from criminal retaliation. State Senator Benjie Wimberly’s proposed mask ban for federal, state, and local officers—endorsed by Governor‑elect Mikie Sherrill—is political theater at its most cynical. It gambles with the lives of officers and their families for political ideological points.
The bill would prohibit officers from wearing masks on duty, with penalties of up to $1,000 in fines and six months in prison. Supporters claim it enhances public safety by ensuring officers can be easily identified. But this framing is dangerously dishonest. Officers don’t wear masks for comfort or intimidation. They wear them because of documented threats: doxxing campaigns that expose identities, leading to harassment, threats, and violence against officers and their families.
The irony is staggering. Many of the same politicians pushing this ban have tolerated or even encouraged protesters who engage in doxxing. They create the danger, then criminalize officers for protecting themselves from it. This isn’t reform—it’s a calculated attack on effective policing dressed up in the language of accountability.
The real‑world consequences are chilling. Officers confronting cartel networks, organized crime, domestic terrorists, or violent drug dealers face adversaries with sophisticated surveillance and intimidation tactics. The mask ban turns every enforcement action into a potential death sentence, as criminals can easily photograph, identify, and target officers. DHS has reported a 1,000% increase in assaults against federal officers in recent years, much of it linked to doxxing and public exposure.
Consider Nashville in 2025: after ICE agents arrested nearly 200 violent offenders, the mayor’s office published their names. Within days, gangs like MS‑13 and Tren de Aragua began targeting those officers and their families. In another Texas case, one officer’s spouse received a chilling phone call: “I hope your kids get deported by accident… what happened to the Nazis after WWII is what’s going to happen to your family.” These are not hypotheticals—they are the stark reality of law enforcement families when anonymity is stripped away.
Federal law recognizes these threats. Statutes like 18 USC 115 criminalize retaliation against officers’ families. New Jersey’s ban undermines those protections by forcing exposure to the very criminals these laws were designed to guard against. Seasoned officers have already reported retaliation after being publicly identified, forcing them off the streets and stripping departments of hard‑earned experience. That’s the point: to drive out effective officers who resist the “reimagine policing” agenda.
The constitutional problems are equally damning. California’s mask ban has already been stayed and faces federal challenge under the Supremacy Clause, which bars states from regulating federal operations. Even Wimberly admits New Jersey’s law would likely fall if California’s does. So why pursue legislation you know is unconstitutional? Because the goal isn’t lasting policy—it’s signaling allegiance to a political movement that views traditional policing as an obstacle to be dismantled.
This strategy is clear: make the job so dangerous that seasoned officers leave, paving the way for a new generation trained under alternative standards. The criminalization of police conduct shows lawmakers care more about votes than about the officers who protect their communities.
Practical realities further expose the bill’s absurdity. Officers working in New Jersey’s brutal winters rely on balaclavas and face coverings to protect against frostbite during patrols and rescues. Under this law, such gear would be banned. Imagine an officer responding to a crash on an icy road, face exposed to bitter winds, while lawmakers stay warm at home—protected by the very officers they’ve placed in danger.
Supporters may argue that body cameras once faced similar skepticism but ultimately vindicated officers and built public trust. But unlike cameras, the mask ban doesn’t protect officers—it exposes them. California’s experience already shows the law won’t survive federal scrutiny. Using officers’ lives to prove a political point is reckless and indefensible.
This debate is not about accountability—it’s about manipulation. Officer safety and operational effectiveness must remain top priorities. Sacrificing them for political theater will destroy the backbone of the criminal justice system. If lawmakers truly cared about reform, they would give police a seat at the table, respecting their expertise instead of criminalizing their survival.
As this legislation advances, New Jersey must confront hard truths: state versus federal authority, the real‑world consequences of “reform,” and whether symbolism should trump practical safety. The answers will shape not just officers’ futures, but the safety of their families and communities. This mask ban isn’t reform—it’s a stunt that treats law enforcement lives as expendable, written by politicians who will never face the consequences while officers pay the ultimate price for their service.
_
David Berez is a retired 20-year police veteran with the East Windsor (NJ) Police Department, and the author of the book, “A Resilient Life: A Cop’s Journey in Pursuit of Purpose.” He is a member of the Law Enforcement Advisory Council of Citizens Behind the Badge.
