An Ohio Republican lawmaker has proposed a measure heightening penalties for people who commit crimes while concealing their identity with a mask or disguise. Ohio Democrats would like to see the same restrictions applied to law enforcement officers.
State Rep. Josh Williams, R-Sylvania Township, has introduced Ohio House Bill 236, which creates a new offense of “masked harassment” which is punishable as a first-degree misdemeanor.
The state’s aggravated riot statutes get new masking offenses as well. Wearing a mask while engaging in disorderly conduct with four or more individuals is a fifth-degree felony. Doing so with the intent of committing an act of violence would be a third-degree felony.
Additionally, Williams proposes a new sentencing specification for any felony committed by someone concealing their identity. If they’re found guilty, they’d face a one-year mandatory prison term.
“In recent years,” Williams told a House committee Wednesday, “we’ve witnessed a troubling increase in individuals concealing their identities, often with masks, while engaging in harassment, trespass and violent crimes.”
“Increasing the penalties for wearing a mask while committing a crime,” he went on, “clearly sends a message: concealment for the purpose of evading accountability will not be tolerated in our communities and in our state.”
Wearing a mask not only helps an offender evade punishment, Williams said, it “intensifies the psychological terror” victims suffer.
He invoked protests outside a Los Angeles Synagogue and the assassination in Minnesota of a state lawmaker and her husband.
“Together we can reinforce the rule of law, protect our communities and ensure that no one can use anonymity as a shield for criminal behavior,” Williams insisted.
Democrats on the committee asked the question likely on the mind of anyone following President Trump’s immigration crackdown or the looming government shutdown over Department of Homeland Security funding: OK, what about ICE?
Goose meet gander
Starting last December, thousands of Department of Homeland Security officers, including Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection, descended on the Twin Cities.
Since then, the agency claims it has arrested 3,000 undocumented people. The operation has also led to the killing of two U.S. citizens.
The backlash has been swift and fierce. In addition to a shake up in the operation’s leadership, Congressional Democrats are threatening to hold up funding for DHS.
One of their central demands is prohibiting federal agents from carrying out their duty in masks.
“I could not, you know, not think about ICE and federal law enforcement and what’s been happening over the last few months,” Ohio state Rep. Ismail Mohamed told Williams.
He explained Ohio Democrats have proposed legislation requiring all law enforcement officers, with limited exceptions, to identify themselves and not wear masks on duty.
“So, I guess would you be in favor of this applying to law enforcement as well?” Mohamed asked about Williams’ proposal.
Williams said he would not be supportive of legislation that “dictates” what federal law enforcement can and can’t do in the state.
He noted a mask ban in California was recently blocked in the courts because it exempts state police — thereby discriminating against federal officers.
Mohamed asked about exceptions for individuals wearing a mask for safety or medical reasons.
Williams turned him down and pointed to Ohio’s gun possession sentencing specification.
“If a defendant comes in court and says, I didn’t plan on using the gun in the commission of crime, we said your possession of the gun is enough to get a one-year (sentence) specification here in the state of Ohio,” Williams said.
Who’s protected?
Some law enforcement officers in Ohio already hide their identity, Williams argued, and it’s important that they do so.
“I’ve seen gang units in my community conceal their identity. I’ve seen undercover officers conceal their identity for purposes of investigative integrity. And what we’re seeing now is doxing federal immigration enforcement,” Williams said.
State Rep. Phil Plummer, R-Dayton, agreed it’s “so important to mask these officers up.”
Before serving in the statehouse, Plummer was the Montgomery County Sheriff, and in that role, he oversaw several officers engaged in drug enforcement.
“These cartels threaten my officer’s lives. They threaten my officer’s children’s lives,” Plummer said.
“We all know I can Google anybody sitting in this room and find out where you live in two minutes, maybe a minute and a half, very simple. It’s all out there on the net.”
Ohio state Rep. Beryl Brown Piccolantonio, D-Gahanna, brushed those arguments off as red herrings.
The mask ban Ohio Democrats have proposed applies to local, state, and federal officers equally, and carries exceptions for masks worn for safety, by SWAT units or undercover officers.
She noted as well that Ohio law already grants sweeping protections to keep public safety officials’ personal information out of public records.
“I’m struggling to see why we would have, I guess, a different First Amendment right apply,” she said, when law enforcement officers receive protections that private citizens can’t access.
Williams rejected the idea that his bill creates different levels of constitutional rights, and he made another comparison to Ohio’s sentencing rules for gun possession.
“If you have a gun in your possession when you commit an offense, guess what? It’s a one-year weapon specification,” he said. “That doesn’t mean it lowered your constitutional right to carry a gun.”
Speaking after the hearing, Williams acknowledged there was a time — back when local governments worked with federal agencies and opponents weren’t “doxing elected officials” — when it wouldn’t have been acceptable for law enforcement officers to conceal their identity in the line of duty.
“Now, with the political climate that we have in the United States,” he said, “I think it is absolutely reasonable for law enforcement officers, such as ICE, to conceal their identities for the safety and security of those officers moving forward.”
Originally published by the Ohio Capital Journal. Republished here with permission.