California’s shock glove ban is scheduled to begin in 2027 after Governor Gavin Newsom signed legislation restricting law enforcement use of wearable electroshock devices. The September 29 measure covers state and local agencies and expressly includes federal law enforcement, making its application to immigration officers a potential point of legal conflict.
The law is broader than a restriction aimed only at U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. It also creates a temporary review period: the relevant section expires on January 1, 2030, unless lawmakers change it.
That date matters. Describing the restriction as lasting through 2030 could suggest it remains in force for that entire year, while the enacted text provides for repeal at the year’s beginning.
What the shock glove ban covers
Assembly Bill 2760, authored by Assemblymember LaShae Sharp-Collins, adds a section to California’s Government Code. The chaptered legislative text prohibits covered agencies from using wearable electroshock devices within California and bars state funds from paying for them. It also requires agencies to update their use-of-force policies accordingly.
The definition concerns an electroshock weapon designed to be worn as a glove. It excludes pistol-style Tasers, stun guns and similar weapons, so the measure should not be described as a prohibition on every electrical law-enforcement device.
The legislation also directs California’s Justice Department to study safety and community impacts, consult stakeholders and recommend safeguards. A report is due to the Legislature by January 1, 2029.
The review deadline comes a year before the scheduled repeal. That timetable gives lawmakers an opportunity to consider the findings before deciding whether to extend the restriction, change its requirements or allow it to lapse.
ICE Procurement Helped Drive the Debate
CalMatters reported in August that ICE awarded Compliant Technologies a $16.7 million contract for 6,000 pairs of gloves. That planned purchase helped prompt the legislative push.
An ICE procurement justification published by CBS News lists a total of $16,700,640. The package includes glove units alongside supporting equipment and services, so that total should not be presented as spending exclusively on the gloves themselves.
The document describes the devices as tools for gaining control of resistant individuals without moving to more forceful options. Those descriptions set out ICE’s rationale for buying them; they are not independent findings that every use will be safe.
Military Assessment Raised Further Safety Questions
On October 6, the Associated Press reported that an Army assessment found participants experienced intense pain, stopped resisting and feared further shocks. The exercise involved military personnel role-playing guards and prisoners at Fort Leavenworth in 2024.
American Oversight, the watchdog that obtained the records, said the assessment evaluated military utility rather than establishing health and safety effects. The group argues that operational effectiveness should not be confused with proof of safety for the wider public.
ICE has argued that faster compliance can reduce prolonged physical struggles and the need for more dangerous force. AP reported that training and policy questions remained part of the agency’s preparations for deployment.
Federal Enforcement Remains a Legal Question
Newsom’s signing announcement presented the measure as part of a broader effort to strengthen accountability around immigration enforcement. His office acknowledged that California cannot dictate federal immigration policy but argued that it can establish standards for practices within the state.
That position is disputed. CalMatters reported that law-enforcement groups opposed the measure as a restriction on officers’ de-escalation options. UC Davis law professor Vikram Amar also questioned the state’s authority to regulate how federal officers perform their jobs.
Those objections do not erase the shock glove ban from California’s statute book. They do mean that inclusion of federal agencies in the text should not be treated as a final court ruling that the state can enforce every provision against ICE.
The practical questions are therefore distinct: what the law says, when its restrictions begin, what safety evidence emerges and how courts address any challenge. Support for the shock glove ban remains a policy judgment; its scope, review deadline and expiration can be checked against the enacted text.
