California signs ban on police use of electric-shock gloves after ICE purchase

California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a law in Sacramento on Tuesday, Sept. 29, banning law-enforcement agencies from using wearable electric-shock gloves in the state. The measure follows a contract award for 6,000 such gloves for US Immigration and Customs Enforcement. It expressly covers federal agencies, though whether California can enforce that provision against federal officers remains unresolved.

The measure, AB 2760, was authored by Assemblymember LaShae Sharp-Collins. The governor’s office included it in a package of immigration-related bills signed Tuesday. The law addresses a particular type of equipment that officers wear on a hand and use to deliver an electric shock; it is not a general ban on every electrical weapon used by police.

What California’s shock-glove law prohibits

The enrolled bill bars a law-enforcement agency from using a wearable electroshock device within California. It defines the device as a weapon designed to temporarily incapacitate someone through a controlled electric shock and designed to be worn as a glove. Its definition excludes pistol-style Tasers and stun guns, making the glove design central to the restriction.

The bill defines law-enforcement agencies to include state and local bodies as well as federal agencies. It also requires agencies to update their use-of-force policies to prohibit the covered devices and bars the use of state funds to purchase them. Those provisions describe what California’s lawmakers enacted; they do not settle how the restriction will operate for federal officers.

Why ICE’s glove contract prompted the bill

Sharp-Collins told AP that ICE’s plan was the catalyst for her legislation. She said she wanted to ‘put a pause’ on law-enforcement use while California examined possible risks. She also pointed to use by officers outside ICE, so the measure addresses law-enforcement agencies more broadly than the federal immigration agency that prompted it.

An earlier AP report said ICE awarded a $16.7 million contract for 6,000 gloves to Kentucky-based Compliant Technologies LLC. The six-month deal also covered support equipment and services. CBS News separately reported that the contract was signed Aug. 26 and posted Aug. 27. The award establishes a purchase plan, not that ICE officers have received or used the gloves.

According to AP’s account of the procurement documents, ICE described possible use during arrests, transport of combative detainees and disturbances outside detention facilities. The agency presented the gloves as a means of gaining control while avoiding more severe force. CBS reported that ICE paperwork promised policies, training and accountability standards but did not spell out those safeguards; the Department of Homeland Security defended the purchase and said officers receive de-escalation training.

Can the ban apply to federal officers?

California included federal agencies in the bill’s text, but a dispute over the state’s authority to direct federal officers could follow. Kevin Johnson, a professor emeritus at the University of California, Davis School of Law, told AP he expects courts to find that California cannot dictate federal officers’ equipment. He cited the US Constitution’s Supremacy Clause. That is his legal assessment, not a ruling on AB 2760.

AP reported a related precedent: a federal judge earlier this year blocked California’s first law restricting face coverings for federal officers. The judge found that measure too selective because it covered local and federal officers but exempted state officers. That ruling concerned a different law and does not determine whether the shock-glove measure can be enforced against federal agents.

The governor’s office says California cannot dictate federal immigration policy, while arguing that the state can set requirements in specified areas within its borders. Newsom described Tuesday’s legislation as an effort to strengthen transparency, accountability and oversight of immigration enforcement. The practical effect of the glove restriction on ICE will depend in part on any challenge to its application to federal officers.

Support and opposition to the restriction

The bill has drawn opposition from Sacramento County Sheriff Jim Cooper. AP reported that Cooper called shock gloves a tool officers may need and argued that the ban would make their jobs harder. Sharp-Collins, by contrast, has framed the restriction as a pause for a safety review. The state’s required report is due before the prohibition expires, leaving lawmakers time to consider its findings.