Proposed MD bill calls for ‘digital unmasking’ of ICE agents accused of misconduct

Across the country, masked federal agents have faced scrutiny over what critics call an overreach of power and limited oversight.

While many lawmakers have proposed bills calling for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents to remove their masks during operations, one new piece of legislation is approaching the issue of transparency in a different way.

“My legislation would essentially use very common law enforcement tools to try and find data that would help identify ICE agents,” said Maryland Del. David Moon. “Think about things like license plate scanners, cell phone trackers, facial recognition technology.”

Moon, who represents Montgomery County, is calling for the “digital unmasking” of federal agents accused of violent or unconstitutional misconduct.

If passed, his bill would authorize the Maryland attorney general and state police under court order to gather identifying digital data about agents who are the subject of misconduct complaints.

“I fully expect ICE is going to ignore mandates on taking their masks off that are put forward by states,” Moon said. “[…] Never did I believe that we would be using police tools, basically, to have to police what the federal government is doing, but this is where we are.”

News4 reached out to ICE to ask about the proposed bill and concerns over the agency’s transparency. It sent this statement, which reads, in part:

“This proposed Maryland legislation is a reckless and dangerous form of state-sanctioned doxing. It is deeply irresponsible and puts the lives of our officers, and their families, at serious risk … This legislation would exacerbate an already dangerous situation. Exposing and targeting law enforcement officers is not transparency, it is blatant intimidation. Maryland lawmakers pushing this proposal should be ashamed of themselves for endangering the men and women who protect their communities.”

Moon disagrees with that characterization.

“This is not a doxxing bill,” he said. “None of this information would be made public. This is for the courts and prosecutors to be able to know who to sue or who to prosecute and charge with a crime. That is its sole purpose.”

This is just a bill proposal, and if it moves forward, it will likely be amended along the way.