MONTGOMERY, Ala. – The Alabama House of Representatives passed recently a bill to require Alabamians to identify themselves to law enforcement if they are wearing a mask during a protest.
House Bill 168 – sponsored by Rep. Jamie Kiel, R-Russellville – specifies that people must remove their masks for identification purposes at the request of law enforcement officers, which sparked objections from Democrats.
It alters the loitering code and dictates that medical and surgical mask wearing at protests is lawful when the person is doing so “for the purpose of complying with documented guidance of his or her health care provider to prevent the spread of infectious disease.”
The bill requires Alabamians wearing medical or surgical masks to have written proof that they are doing so for health reasons.
“A law enforcement officer may require an individual wearing a mask under such circumstances to produce documented medical guidance to substantiate the applicability of this exemption,” the bill reads.
Under current law, wearing a mask is only permitted at an event like a parade, masquerade or religious or historical demonstration.
Kiel said the bill does not create another form of loitering or illegal activity.
“The ultimate goal is to clarify that if you’re wearing a medical mask, you’re not loitering, and if you’re wearing the mask, you must show yourself if a law enforcement officer asks you to,” Kiel said on the House floor. “You must identify yourself.”
During debate, several Democrats brought up law enforcement officers wearing masks and face coverings to conceal their identities.
Rep. A.J. McCampbell, R-Demopolis, said that when he was in law enforcement he always wore a badge and nameplate. Though he did not refer explicitly to the U.S. Customs and Immigration Enforcement agency, he said that what is going on in society right now is “not good” and that morality needs to stand up.
“And if the officer is wearing a mask, should not he show his face?” McCampbell asked on the floor.
As ICE’s presence increases across the country, the agency has been criticized for agents wearing face coverings and refusing to identify themselves when asked. California banned law enforcement officials from wearing masks at the beginning of the year.
Other Democrats brought up issues with the enforcement of the proposed exemption in the loitering code.
Rep. Tashina Morris, D-Montgomery, said she worries the bill could lead to small groups of people unrelated to protests having to identify themselves to law enforcement.
“I totally get exactly what it is you’re trying to do, being able to identify somebody, but the unintended (consequences) that’s attached to it is going to make this a very, very, very profiling piece of legislation,” Morris said. “I know you don’t think so because you don’t have to worry about profiling.”
House Minority Leader Anthony Daniels, D-Huntsville, questioned why the alteration of the loitering code is limited only to medical and surgical masks, saying that many people wore cloth masks for the same purpose during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Kiel repeatedly said the bill has a narrow scope and disagreed with Democrats’ characterization of how it would be enforced.
A similar bill passed last year but never made it out of the Senate. The new bill passed on party lines with a vote of 71-27. It now heads to the Senate Fiscal Responsibility and Economic Development Committee.