Virginia's effort to ban facial coverings for police fails in committee

Legislation that would have restricted law enforcement officers from wearing face coverings while on duty did not advance.

Virginia, VA – A bill that sought to prohibit most state and federal law-enforcement officers from wearing facial coverings while performing official duties has failed in the House Committee on Public Safety.

House Bill 7, introduced by Del. Jones and multiple co-patrons, was left in committee on February 18, effectively ending its progress for the session.

Key Points

HB7 would have barred most on-duty officers from wearing facial coverings
Violations could have resulted in misdemeanor charges and civil liability
Measure failed in House Public Safety Committee

Proposed limits and exceptions

The bill would have prohibited law-enforcement officers from wearing facial coverings that conceal or obscure their identities while engaged in official duties.

Exceptions were outlined for specific circumstances, including:

Medical-grade masks used to prevent disease transmission
Protective gear used against toxins, smoke, or hazardous conditions
Motorcycle helmets and underwater equipment
Protective eyewear against retinal weapons
Face coverings worn by SWAT or specialized tactical teams during official assignments

Under the proposal, officers who violated the restrictions could have faced a Class 1 misdemeanor unless their agency had adopted a written policy governing facial covering use.

The measure also directed the Department of Criminal Justice Services to develop a model policy for agencies addressing when facial coverings would be permitted.

Civil liability provisions

HB7 included a provision creating a civil cause of action for individuals injured as a result of tortious conduct by an officer who knowingly and intentionally wore a facial covering in violation of the law.

The proposal stated that sovereign immunity would not serve as a defense in such cases, and prevailing plaintiffs could have recovered actual damages or $10,000, whichever was greater, along with attorney’s fees and costs.

Because the bill was left in committee, it will not move forward unless reintroduced in a future legislative session.