Modesto police review board votes to repeal protest mask ban. What will city do?
AI-generated summary reviewed by our newsroom.
- Modesto's police review board voted 7–1 to recommend repeal of protest mask ban.
- The board cited First Amendment issues and selective enforcement concerns.
- The city manager now evaluates the recommendation and next procedural steps.
The Community Police Review Board voted 7–1 to recommend to the city manager the repeal of Modesto’s ordinance banning masks at protests.
Board member Kenneth Bryant was the opposing vote, and Austin Grant was absent.
The recommendation follows months of pressure after five people were arrested for wearing masks during protests June 14. Though the charges were dropped, community members and advocates have called the ordinance unconstitutional and said the Police Department enforced it selectively.
According to the CPRB bylaws, the city manager will now “evaluate all recommendations issued by the CPRB, to include determining what next steps, if any, will be taken relative to those recommendations.”
“The City is evaluating the work and recommendations of the Community Police Review Board to determine the next steps,” the city said in a statement to The Bee.
The vote came after nearly two hours of debate and a presentation from the board’s ad hoc committee — Wendy Byrd, Nico Solorio, Latricia Beasley-Day and Brad Hawn — which spent the past month reviewing the law.
They found that Modesto is one of only three California cities with a mask ban and that broad anti-mask bans are legally vulnerable. Georgia and Virginia still enforce anti-mask laws, while New York and D.C. repealed theirs in 2020.
The board had received letters from the American Civil Liberties Union, First Amendment Coalition, Modesto/Stanislaus NAACP, Central Valley Black Indigenous People of Color Coalition, the Fellowship of St. Unitarian Universal and former police and forensic psychologist Phil Trompetter. Some urged repeal. Others suggested amendments.
The committee highlighted concerns over First Amendment rights, overbreadth, selective enforcement, potential discriminatory impact and vagueness that could violate due process.
“The current ordinance is in need of revision,” said Beasley-Day. “With political violence on the rise and more protests expected, public safety must be understood as a shared responsibility.”
About 25 community members attended, and every speaker during public comment supported repealing the ordinance.
“The First Amendment has no dress code,” said Learkana Chong, a member of CVBIPOCC.
Police chief chimes in
Prior to the vote, Modesto Police Chief Brandon Gillesspie expressed concern with the ad-hoc committee’s presentation, stating it lacks “neutrality, balance and sufficient research” and is largely “a regurgitation of advocacy letters from the ACLU, NAACP and other aligned groups.”
Gillespie said the recommendations seemed informed by internet research and no attempt was made to seek input from a wide range of perspectives, including business owners, faith leaders and victims, “who may view this ordinance differently than the group of voices who regularly attend these meetings.”
“If this board wants to assess community sentiment, it must mean all of our community, not just a fraction of it: families who want to feel safe downtown, business owners worried about disorder, residents concerned about protests escalating into violence,” said Gillespie. “Those voices matter every bit as much as those represented in the advocacy letters.”
Gillespie said that if he’d known the board would act as a watchdog or advocacy group, he wouldn’t have supported its creation. He urged members to reconsider their recommendation and ensure they had accurate, unbiased information.
The chief’s comments appeared unpopular with the public, creating a tense exchange that led to the abrupt end of public comment.
Board member Frank Damrell said he’s spent the past three months talking with many different people outside the meetings, including business owners. “The police chief mentioned other people that aren’t here, and there are concerns, but you know, they’re not here, right?” said Damrell.
More community input or more delay?
During the presentation, the ad-hoc committee said it had drafted a sample survey to gather community feedback and that the city offered to partner with the board on their own survey and have it distributed through a third party. If approved, the survey would go out in about two weeks, with results expected in November.
There was debate, however, whether to wait for those results before recommending action to the city manager or to move forward with a recommendation immediately.
While some liked the idea of gathering more input, others felt it was another bureaucratic delay, noting that community members and advocacy groups have already spoken extensively. People in the public argued that additional feedback won’t change the ordinance’s constitutionality and urged an immediate repeal.
“Normally, like I said, I would want more data, and I would want the whole community to have input into something like this, but we can’t always have that,” said Ryan Roth Gallo, a local attorney. “Sometimes we have to act to protect rights that are being violated.”
Urgency was also emphasized because protests are being planned, leaving organizers unsure about how the ordinance will be enforced.
“We have major protests coming up soon. I don’t want this mask ordinance to be on the records when those occur, or at the very least, there needs to be some deep understanding that it will not be implemented by the police,” said Mary Rogers, a public commenter.
Chong said that calling for a community survey undermines those who have consistently attended CPRB and City Council meetings to voice their concerns. “Community has been giving you input, and I don’t appreciate the erasure of our voices.”
Bryant, the lone vote against the recommendation, said he believes a broader segment of the community still needs to be heard and supported conducting a survey before making any decision.
“I think there’s an entire community out there that deserves to be heard, and the fact that they don’t show up here doesn’t really mean anything to me. I think their viewpoints and their input is just as valid, and I think we need to have some sort of comprehensive, professional method of gauging that sentiment,” Bryant said.
The board unanimously approved a motion to add questions to the city’s engagement survey after the recommendations to repeal the mask ordinance were already approved.
Before the CPRB meeting, the ACLU said it values community input but emphasized that constitutional rights are at stake.
“The anti-mask, anti-protest law on Modesto’s books chills the free speech rights of all. It must be addressed sooner rather than later,” said Chessie Thacher, senior staff attorney at the ACLU of Northern California, in a statement to The Bee. “If the city drags its review process on, we will be compelled to take legal action.”
Other recommendations
The ad hoc committee also proposed recommendations to allow protest organizers to use megaphones and to have the police train organizers and volunteers in crowd-sourced public safety to provide extra eyes and ears for reporting suspicious activity. Both suggestions were unpopular with the public and some board members.
“Asking organizers to identify themselves to police is dangerous. Organizers were targeted here in the protest. That’s part of why we’re here,” said Harlan Diven, an attorney with the California Rural Legal Association.
Janessa Gonzales suggested that rather than training organizers, the Police Department should just communicate with the community through social media.
A motion to have the city review other parts of the ordinance, which outline additional items banned at protests, was rejected over potential Brown Act violations.
Modesto Municipal Code lists 19 items that “no person shall utilize, carry, or possess” while attending or participating in any “demonstration, rally, protest, counter-protest, picket line, march, or public assembly.” Among those are glass bottles, tactical vests, baseball bats and umbrellas in the absence of rain.
Some members of the public also asked for an investigation into MPD’s enforcement during the June 14 protests.
A motion to recommend the city manager investigate the June 14 protests and any possible misconduct from the Police Department, including a review of its policies and procedures, was introduced by Solorio but also was rejected due to the Brown Act.
Stephen Connolly, the independent police auditor, said his office has the purview to review the Police Department’s investigation into its enforcement during the June 14 protests.
This story was originally published September 18, 2025 at 2:56 PM.
CORRECTION: The story has been updated with a brief statement by the Modesto city manager’s office.
