The Stockton City Council approved a new ordinance Tuesday that regulates the use of facial coverings in public and certain private spaces, ending a yearlong debate over whether the city needed another tool to address crimes involving people wearing ski masks.

The council voted 6-1 to adopt the ordinance, with Mayor Christina Fugazi casting the lone dissenting vote. 

The ordinance expands the Stockton Municipal code to make it illegal to wear a “face-covering ski mask” when a person is trying to hide their identity and knows, or reasonably should know, that wearing it would cause fear of intimidation, threats or violence. 

There are some exceptions to the mask ban. City officials specified exceptions for religious garments, medical needs, workplace safety, theatrical and sporting events, traditional holiday costumes and law enforcement and emergency personnel. 

The vote followed months of discussion about public safety, police discretion on enforcement and whether the ordinance could expose the city to legal challenges.

Vice Mayor Jason Lee, who has been the main proponent of the ordinance and pushed for its passing through multiple rounds of discussions on the issue at both council subcommittee meetings, and urged the city to take action after reported concerns about crimes involving people wearing masks.

“We are all promising public safety,” Lee said. “We’re running campaigns on public safety. We’re talking to people in our community about public safety all day long.”

The issue first surfaced publicly last June, when Lee said he wanted Stockton to explore a face-covering ban after several robberies involved masked suspects. At the time, he pointed to the armed robbery of an eighth-grader who was robbed of a money lei following a graduation ceremony.

The Stockton Police Department reported last November that one in four robberies in the city involved perpetrators wearing masks, including 241 of 941 robberies the previous year.

The proposal then moved through the council’s Legislation and Environmental Committee, led by Councilmember Mario Enriquez, which voted 3-0 in October to forward a possible ordinance to the full council.

But when the item reached City Council in November, members declined to move forward and sent it back for more work. At the time, concerns centered on how the ordinance would be enforced, whether it could affect peaceful protesters, and that police encounters over masks could escalate. 

Those same concerns were brought forth once again Tuesday. 

Fugazi said she understood why face coverings can raise safety concerns, especially in schools, where staff need to know who belongs on campus, but was worried about adopting a broader city rule that could affect people who are not committing crimes.

“My concern with this, as a blanket resolution or ordinance, is the fact that you know people have inalienable rights,” Fugazi said. 

Stockton Deputy Police Chief Anabel Morris told councilmembers the new ordinance overlaps with existing state laws, but said it could still give officers another tool in their belt for policing. Officers would have to look at the facts of each situation and protect people’s rights, she said. 

“It’s definitely a good tool to use,” Morris said.

Police calls involving a person wearing a mask would not automatically be deemed emergency calls, Morris said. Dispatchers would need to ask more questions to determine the circumstances so officers would know how to respond to calls reporting individuals wearing masks in violation of the ordinance.

Councilmember Michael Blower also inquired about a legal challenge involving a similar ordinance in Modesto. Newly-minted City Attorney Marci Arredondo said that, while she has not reviewed Modesto’s ordinance in detail, Stockton’s proposal had gone through legal review prior to her time with the city and she trusted her staff’s work.

Public commenters also urged the council to slow down in making a final decision on a mask ban.

Michelle Sherman Williams said Stockton’s problem isn’t a lack of laws but lack of enforcement and staffing. 

“Before creating additional ordered ordinances, we should focus on ensuring that our police department has the staffing and resources necessary to enforce the laws already on the books,” Williams said. 

David Sengthay, a Stockton native and regular commenter at City Council meetings, asked the councilmembers to send the ordinance back for more review. He said the proposal relied too much on officer discretion and could be applied unevenly. 

“Stockton is a majority people of color community,” he said. “An ordinance that relies on officer discretion without no objective standard carries a real risk of uneven application, even amongst the most trained and skilled police officers.”

Following a lengthy and detailed discussion, the council ultimately passed the mask ban following some hesitation from several councilmembers based on possible legal challenges, efficacy and concerns from the public. 

The ordinance will take effect 30 days after adoption.