California will prohibit, starting next year, the use of gloves capable of delivering electric shocks by local, state, and federal agents, a measure that also applies to officials of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) operating in the state.
Governor Gavin Newsom signed legislation AB 2760 this Tuesday, which is part of a broader package of measures regarding immigration law enforcement and oversight of federal agents, and whose prohibition will remain in effect until 2030, according to reported AP.
The measure comes just a few weeks after ICE proceeded with the purchase of this type of device.
The agency awarded a contract in August for almost 17 million dollars to acquire 6,000 pairs of electric gloves, designed to deliver painful shocks and compel a resistant person to comply with the agents' orders.
The Democratic legislator LaShae Sharp-Collins, the author of the initiative, explained that she aimed to pause the use of these devices while their potential risks are assessed.
The new law also requires that the California Department of Justice study its safety and present a report to lawmakers before 2029.
"There is a lot of unrest and a lot of uncertainty. Many people are afraid," Sharp-Collins said to AP.
The California government itself introduced the regulation as the first ban of its kind in the United States.
In the official statement regarding the legislative package, Newsom's office noted that AB 2760 sets limitations on the use of portable electroshock devices by law enforcement.
Newsom linked the legislation to his political and legal clash with the Donald Trump administration over immigration operations.
"Trump has placed his political interests above the health, safety, and well-being of American families," the governor stated in a press release, adding that California intends to reinforce "transparency, accountability, and oversight" in the enforcement of immigration laws.
The prohibition is part of a package that also includes restrictions on the use of stun grenades and explosive devices during migration operations, new rules for vehicles used by law enforcement, and increased oversight of private detention centers.
However, California's ability to impose those restrictions on federal agents could end up in court again.
Kevin Johnson, professor emeritus at the School of Law at the University of California, Davis, told AP that it is likely the judges will conclude that the state cannot determine what equipment federal agents may use, due to the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution.
"The state has very limited powers, if any, to dictate to the federal government how its agents should be equipped," Johnson explained.
He also opposed the measure Bill Essayli, the first assistant federal prosecutor appointed by Trump, who argued that California lacks jurisdiction to regulate the weapons or tools used by federal agents.
"If you want to regulate federal agents, you need to win a federal election. Until then, you have no jurisdiction," Essayli wrote on X, according to AP.
The opposition also includes law enforcement organizations from California. The sheriff of Sacramento County, Jim Cooper, a Democrat and former state legislator, questioned the ban, considering that gloves are a non-lethal tool that officers could use in certain circumstances.
Sharp-Collins stated that ICE's plan to incorporate the devices was the catalyst for their project. He also cited a case that occurred in Kentucky, where a family claims that a man died after receiving multiple shocks with these gloves and a Taser device while in custody in 2024.
The discussion about ICE's equipment comes after other controversies related to the use of force and the oversight of its agents.
In July, ICE announced that it would require its agents to use body cameras during traffic stops, following two fatal shootings in which the officers involved were not wearing active cameras.
However, the implementation of those cameras also sparked debate. In August, it was reported that images of serious incidents would only be released when ICE deemed it to be in the "best interest of the agency", a condition that was challenged by advocates for greater transparency.
Related videos:
Filed under: