Federal Limits

Limit 09 of nine · Agent identification

Identified agents, recording allowed

~1,618 arrests in 16 days by agents “many lacking identifying information.”

The problem

Unidentifiable federal agents — masked, in plain clothes, in unmarked cars — are becoming the default mode of enforcement, and that anonymity is by design: it strips the public’s ability to know who is detaining them or hold anyone accountable, in any federal operation. A U.S. senator’s office documented roughly 1,618 arrests in one metro area over sixteen days by agents “many lacking identifying information,” and a federal court found the masking served “to terrorize Americans into quiescence.” With federal oversight dismantled, a state ID-and-recording law restores the minimum proof of who did what.

What the law does

Requires the state’s own officers to show ID and not mask on duty during cooperation, keeps cameras recording, and protects the public’s right to record.

Where it stands

Where it stands — all 52 jurisdictions27 of 52 have written a limit of this kind
written in full written in part not written red underline = state law mandates cooperation
Find my state all 52 jurisdictions, with the statute where one exists
  • Alaskanot written
  • Alabamanot writtenstate law mandates cooperation (state law mandates cooperation)
  • Arkansaswritten in partstate law mandates cooperationA.C.A. §21-1-106(b)(1)(A) + (c)(1) (state law mandates cooperation)
  • Arizonanot writtenstate law mandates cooperation (state law mandates cooperation)
  • Californiawritten in fullSB 627 (No Secret Police Act, 2025, Penal Code §185.5 mask prohibition) + SB 805 (No Vigilantes Act, 2025, ID display) + Penal Code §148(g)/§69(b) (SB 411, 2015 — citizen recording)
  • Coloradowritten in partC.R.S. §24-31-902(1)(a)(II)(A)
  • Connecticutwritten in fullSB 397 (signed May 4, 2026) — mask ban + visible badges + name tags + civil suit rights
  • District of Columbiawritten in partD.C. Code §5-331.09(a)(1)-(2)
  • Delawarewritten in part11 Del. C. § 8402A; 83 Del. Laws ch. 83 (HB 195, 2021), as amended by 85 Del. Laws ch. 303 (HB 303, 2026)
  • Floridanot writtenstate law mandates cooperation (state law mandates cooperation)
  • Georgianot writtenstate law mandates cooperation (state law mandates cooperation)
  • Hawaiiwritten in partAct 210, Session Laws of Hawaii 2025 (HB277 HD2 SD2 CD1), codified HRS ch. 139
  • Iowawritten in partstate law mandates cooperationIowa Code §321.479 (state law mandates cooperation)
  • Idahonot writtenstate law mandates cooperation (state law mandates cooperation)
  • Illinoiswritten in part50 ILCS 706/10-15 (Law Enforcement Officer-Worn Body Camera Act mandate) + 740 ILCS 16 (Illinois Bivens Act, PA 104-0440)
  • Indiananot writtenstate law mandates cooperation (state law mandates cooperation)
  • Kansasnot writtenstate law mandates cooperation (state law mandates cooperation)
  • Kentuckywritten in partKRS 455.200(1)(b)
  • Louisianawritten in partstate law mandates cooperationLa. R.S. 40:2552 (state law mandates cooperation)
  • Massachusettswritten in partM.G.L. c.41 §98C
  • Marylandwritten in fullMd. Pub. Safety §§3-535, 3-536 (Ch. 612, 2026, SB 1; signed 2026-05-26, effective 2026-10-01) + §3-511(c) (body-worn camera mandate, in force)
  • Mainenot written
  • Michigannot written
  • Minnesotanot written
  • Missourinot writtenstate law mandates cooperation (state law mandates cooperation)
  • Mississippiwritten in partstate law mandates cooperationMiss. Code §45-1-20(1) (state law mandates cooperation)
  • Montananot writtenstate law mandates cooperation (state law mandates cooperation)
  • North Carolinanot writtenstate law mandates cooperation (state law mandates cooperation)
  • North Dakotanot writtenstate law mandates cooperation (state law mandates cooperation)
  • Nebraskanot written
  • New Hampshirewritten in partstate law mandates cooperationN.H. RSA 105:3-a(I) (state law mandates cooperation)
  • New Jerseywritten in partP.L.2026, c.3 (LEOPA, SCS S3114/S3216) § 3a (mask ban) + § 4a (visible ID) + P.L.2020, c.128 (BWC mandate)
  • New Mexicowritten in partN.M. Stat. §29-1-18
  • Nevadawritten in partNev. Rev. Stat. §289.830(1)
  • New Yorkwritten in fullCh. 55, Laws of 2026, Part LL Subpart F (MELT Act) - visible officer ID (name/badge/agency) + law-enforcement mask/disguise prohibition; recording prong satisfied via NY Exec. Law §234 (State Police body-worn camera mandate) AND NY Civil Rights Law §79-p (Right to Monitor Act - citizen-recording authorization with private right of action). Civil enforcement: NY Civil Rights Law §79-p private right of action.
  • Ohionot written
  • Oklahomawritten in part21 O.S. §540
  • Oregonwritten in partHB 4138 (2026 Ch. 66) § 1 (visible ID) + §§ 2-4 (mask ban) + § 13 (civil injunctive mechanism)
  • Pennsylvanianot written8 Pa.C.S. s1123 (borough officers wear a shield or badge reading 'Police') - status only
  • Rhode Islandnot written
  • South Carolinawritten in partstate law mandates cooperationS.C. Code §23-1-240 (state law mandates cooperation)
  • South Dakotanot writtenstate law mandates cooperation (state law mandates cooperation)
  • Tennesseenot writtenstate law mandates cooperation (state law mandates cooperation)
  • Texasnot writtenstate law mandates cooperation (state law mandates cooperation)
  • Utahwritten in partstate law mandates cooperationUtah Code §76-8-305(4); also §77-7a-104(2)(d) (state law mandates cooperation)
  • Virginiawritten in partVa. Code §19.2-83.6:2(A)-(B),(D)
  • Vermontnot written
  • Washingtonwritten in fullRCW 10.116.052(2) (Laws of 2026 ch. 115 s1; SSB 5855, eff. 2026-03-19) - officer shall be reasonably identifiable; SB 5855 opaque face-covering prohibition; state body-cam recording mandates
  • Wisconsinwritten in partWis. Stat. §165.98(3)(b)
  • West Virginianot writtenstate law mandates cooperation (state law mandates cooperation)
  • Wyomingnot writtenstate law mandates cooperation (state law mandates cooperation)
  • Puerto Ricowritten in partLey 83-2025, Art. 5(h)

Methodology v3.5 · scored Aug 20 2026

The model language

“Any law enforcement officer on duty within the State shall visibly display, in a manner observable by members of the public, the officer’s name or unique identifying number, the agency the officer represents, and the officer’s badge or other agency-issued identification.”

— Section 9 · Federal Agent Identification and Recording, The Federal Limits Act
Read the full model bill →

What we propose

Require visible ID (name or number, agency, badge), bar non-medical face coverings (narrow tactical, PPE, and religious exceptions), keep body cameras recording during federal cooperation, and protect the public right to record — with civil enforcement. Model: Oregon HB 4138; Connecticut SB 397.

Who’s already done it

26 states + D.C. have ID/mask/recording provisions; 5 at full strength — CA, CT, MD, NY, WA. Maryland’s Ch. 612 (2026) pairs a direct mask prohibition with a visible-ID mandate and takes effect Oct 1 2026; New York’s MELT Act is the live federal test.

On the record

Status: live — the state-officer slice survives; the federal-officer reach is being tested (New York’s MELT Act).

One of nine.
Not the whole fight.

See where your state stands on all nine limits, or read the model bill section that closes this one.

Check your state → ← Back to the Nine