Riverside’s city council has rejected a proposal from the city attorney and police department to ban items like flag poles, wooden sticks and other potential weapons at protests, as well as restrict face coverings except for medical or religious reasons.
In a 5-2 decision on Tuesday, council members raised concerns that the ordinance could infringe on constitutional rights and lead to potential legal challenges.
The ordinance, proposed by Police Chief Larry Gonzalez and City Attorney Jack Liu, was modeled after similar policies at the University of California and California State University aimed at curbing violent protests.
Gonzalez emphasized that the restrictions were designed to target disruptive groups while allowing peaceful demonstrations to continue.
“With election season being a couple weeks away, we're concerned about protests that are going on across the country and in our city," Gonzalez said.
Councilman Sean Mill suggested the measure was too broad in scope.
“I just see this as government overreach,” he said.
Councilwoman Clarissa Cervantes agreed with Mill, voicing concerns about the discretionary power the ordinance could give to law enforcement.
“I think officers already have a great deal of discretion and protection to act when they see someone violating the law,” she said.
She also argued that the policy could open the door to biased enforcement and unnecessary scrutiny of peaceful protesters.
Public feedback also played a role in the council’s decision. About 87 people in person and online criticized the proposal. Many shared that the ordinance would have supressed protests, particularly those related to the war in Gaza.
“To enforce this is a bad move,” said Riverside resident Debbie Leanz. “It's going in a bad direction.”
David Loy of the First Amendment Coalition says that while cities can impose content-neutral restrictions, exemptions for religious or health-related mask-wearing need to be clearly defined and respected.
Nassau County in New York moved to ban face coverings at protests with certain exceptions in August. A federal court dismissed a lawsuit challenging the legality of the law.
