1 STAFF REPORT
DATE: August 12, 2025
TO: Justin Hess, City Manager
FROM: Rafael Quintero, Chief of Police
BY: Viviana Garzon, Police Administrator
SUBJECT: Consideration to Submit a Letter to the State Legislature in Support of Senate Bill 805, the No Vigilantes Act
RECOMMENDATION
1. Note and file; or,
2. In the interest of time, forgo the customary second step in the additional agenda item process, and send a letter of support for Senate Bill 805, the No Vigilantes Act, signed by all five Council Members to California State Senators Sasha Renee P érez, Scott Wiener, and Caroline Menjivar, and State Assemblymember Nick Schultz.
BACKGROUND
At the June 24, 2025, City Council meeting, Vice Mayor Takahashi requested a first step report for Council to consider submitting a letter of support for Senate Bill 805, the No Vigilantes Act (Attachment 1).
DISCUSSION
Senate Bill 805 (SB 805), also known as the No Vigilantes Act, was introduced by State Senators Pé rez and Wiener. SB 805 would require all federal, state, and local law enforcement personnel operating in California to visibly display identification—including their agency and either a name or badge number—when performing enforcement duties.
A violation of this requirement would be a misdemeanor, punishable by up to six months in county jail , a $1,000 fine, or both. Personnel operating undercover are exempt from this provision. The bill would also:
• Authorize employees of law enforcement agencies (LEA)—including any employee or person acting on behalf of a local, state, or federal LEA—to request identification from POLICE
DEPARTMENT
2 individuals suspected of impersonating a law enforcement officer or when there is probable cause, reasonable suspicion of a crime, or a legitimate safety concern.
• Prohibit individuals authorized to apprehend bail fugitives —including bail fugitive recovery agents, bail agents, permittees, solicitors, or licensed private investigators acting in that capacity —from engaging in immigration enforcement activities, as defined in subdivision (f) of § 7284.4 of the California Government Code.
• Require individuals authorized to apprehend bail fugitives to keep a defendant’s immigration status confidential within their employing bail bond agency’s business operations.
• Expand the existing misdemeanor crime of willful and credible impersonation of public officials (e.g., peace officers, fire personnel, public utility employees) via internet or electronic means to include impersonation by any other means, for the purpose of defrauding another.
Existing Regulations and Guidelines
California Penal Code § 830.10
California Penal Code § 830.10 requires uniformed peace officers to wear a badge, nameplate, or other device that clearly displays the officer’s name or identification number. Burbank Police Department (Department) personnel are currently subject to and in compliance with this requirement.
Burbank Police Department Policy 1046
Department policy requires uniformed officers to wear a nameplate, badge, and shoulder patches identifying them as Burbank Police Officers.
Burbank Police Department Uniform Specifications Manual The Department requires non-uniformed officers conducting enforcement operations (i.e. detectives serving warrants) to wear external protective vests. The Uniform Specification Manual requires the vests to be worn with a name badge (with the employee’s last name – or an employee number under specific circumstances) on the right chest, “POLICE” patches on the left chest and back, and a Department-issued cloth or metal badge on the left chest.
Supremacy Clause in Article VI of the U.S. Constitution The Supremacy Clause in Article VI of the U.S. Constitution establishes that the Constitution and federal laws constitute the “supreme law of the land,” meaning that in cases of conflict between federal and state or local laws, federal law prevails. While state and local law enforcement officers derive their authority from state law and would be required to comply with SB 805, federal law enforcement officers operate under federal authority.
This distinction raises legal questions about the enforceability of the provisions in SB 805 as they pertain to federal personnel operating within the State of California.
3 Positions on SB 805
Most jurisdictions throughout the region have not taken an official position in support of or opposition to SB 805. The Cities of Monterey Park, Paramount, Pasadena, and Hawthorne have either issued statements of support or submitted formal letters endorsing SB 805. The Peace Officers Research Association of California (PORAC) has also expressed support for the bill . The bill has also received support from elected officials, civil rights organizations, privacy advocates, and immigrant rights groups.
The Los Angeles County Police Chiefs’ Association (LACPCA) and the California Police Chiefs Association (CPCA) have taken a neutral position.
Potential Impact to the Burbank Police Department
Burbank Police Officers (officers) are required to wear markings identifying themselves and t he agency by the provisions of California Penal Code § 830.10, Burbank Police Department Policy 1046 – Uniform Regulations, and the Uniform Specification Manual .
SB 805 is not expected to change the way officers conduct themselves or interact with the public.
The Department has previously investigated and arrested individuals for impersonating peace officers, unrelated to recent federal immigration enforcement. The Department will continue to investigate and pursue criminal prosecution of such offenses. The Department has received and appropriately managed calls for service related to federal immigration enforcement operations, which were a key impetus for SB 805. The expansion of the provisions for this crime under SB 805 is not expected to have a noticeable impact on Department operations.
The Department remains neutral on SB 805. Existing state law and internal Department policies already provide mechanisms to ensure officer accountability and public transparency. An unintended consequence of SB 805 may put the Department at risk of conflict with federal law and create potential operational, legal, and funding challenges.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This activity has no potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, and as such, is not a “project” subject to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) 14 Cal. Code Regs § 15378.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this report as the Department is already in compliance with California Penal Code § 830.10, and therefore would be in compliance with SB 805.
CONCLUSION
While SB 805 aligns with existing state requirements for law enforcement identification, it primarily reinforces protocols already in place. Additionally, some provisions may conflict with federal legal standards. Given these considerations, staff recommends that Council remain neutral on the legislation and note and file this report. However, should Council 4 wish to express support and forgo the customary second step report, a draft support letter for SB 805 has been included for consideration (Attachment 1).
ATTACHMENT
Attachment 1 – Draft Letter