Arreguín says the bill is "principally focused on local law enforcement" and that he supports it because he does not want local police to use the gloves
Jesse ArreguínCalifornia state senator and chair of the Senate Public Safety Committee, closing the Senate floor debate on AB 2760
Closing the Senate floor debate on August 31, 2026, Sen. Jesse Arreguín, chair of the Public Safety Committee, said that "while this bill is principally focused on local law enforcement," ICE had approved a $16.7 million contract to buy thousands of gloves, which he called "torture gloves," but that "our focus is on local law enforcement." He said he does not want local police to be able to use the devices and that this is why he supports the bill. He also said, earlier in the debate, that the three main law enforcement groups, including the California Police Chiefs Association, had become neutral after the study and the 2030 repeal were added. He said the technology has not been evaluated for safety.
Responding to
Assemblymember LaShae Sharp-Collins said the gloves are largely untested in real-world encounters, that a man died after being repeatedly shocked with them while in custody, and that public safety technology must be proven safe before it is deployed.
“And while this bill is principally focused on local law enforcement, it's worth noting that ICE recently approved a $16.7 million contract to buy thousands of these torture gloves to be deployed in communities throughout the United States. But our focus is on local law enforcement. I believe, I don't want our local police to be able to use these devices. That's why I support this bill.”
Original video
Original text
Where this statement fits
Can California ban ICE and other federal agents from using electric shock gloves, as AB 2760 does?
On September 29, 2026, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed AB 2760, which bars any law enforcement agency in California, including federal agencies such as U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), from using a wearable electroshock device, meaning a weapon worn as a glove that delivers an electric shock. The law applies to state, local and federal agencies, requires a state Department of Justice study by January 1, 2029, and is repealed on January 1, 2030. It followed ICE's August 2026 sole-source contract of $16,700,640 for G.L.O.V.E. gloves from Compliant Technologies. Newsom and the bill's author, Assemblymember LaShae Sharp-Collins, defend the ban, and Sharp-Collins says the gloves have not been proven safe. First Assistant U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli says California has no jurisdiction over federal agents and that he advised the Department of Homeland Security to disregard the law, and the department says it will not abide by it. Sacramento County Sheriff Jim Cooper, the California State Sheriffs' Association, Republican legislators and the gloves' maker oppose the ban as unwise, and two UC Davis law professors say California likely lacks the power to bind federal officers. The disputed question is whether California can ban federal agents from using electric shock gloves. As of October 1, 2026, no court had ruled on AB 2760, and we found no lawsuit against it.
Source and context
Original video
About this source
The Senate floor debate on AB 2760 on August 31, 2026. The segment is the closing remarks of Senator Jesse Arreguin, chair of the Public Safety Committee, who presented the bill for the author. In his opening presentation (about 3:02 into the video file) he also says the Peace Officers Research Association of California, the California Police Chiefs Association and the California Association of Highway Patrolmen had announced neutrality after amendments adding a sunset and a study.
Archived copy (opens in a new tab)Original text
About this source
Roll calls for AB 2760. On the rewritten bill, Senate Public Safety voted 5-1 on August 26, Senate Appropriations 4-2 on August 27, the Senate floor 29-9 on August 31 and the Assembly concurred 55-16 on August 31. The earlier votes on the bill, including the Assembly's 51-7 vote on May 26, were on a different version about county inspectors general.
Before the quotation
Arreguín had presented AB 2760 at the start of the debate for Assemblymember Sharp-Collins. In the August 26 committee hearing he said that when he looked at the bill he was not focused on federal immigration authorities and was concerned about local law enforcement using the tool. Sens. Strickland, Seyarto and Valladares spoke against the bill during the debate.
After the quotation
The Senate passed the bill 29 to 9 and the Assembly agreed to the Senate amendments 55 to 16 the same day. As of October 1, 2026, no court had ruled on AB 2760.
How this statement is classified
The label describes this statement's response within the context above.
Why this label?
Relative to the ban as applied to federal officers, Arreguín supports the bill but says its focus is local law enforcement, and he does not argue that California can bind federal agents. He describes ICE's gloves in sharp terms, and he rests his own support on the risks to the public from local police use. We used Defended or excused because he defends the ban as enacted, which covers federal agencies, on safety grounds. The closest competing label is Mixed or conditional, because he sets the federal application aside, but he attaches no condition to his support.
- Recorded on
- Published here
More from this case
Read the full caseEssayli tells Newsom California has "no jurisdiction" over federal agents and says he advised DHS to disregard the shock-glove ban
“Governor, we’ve been through this already. If you want to regulate federal agents, you have to win a federal election. Until then, you have no jurisdiction. Accordingly, I have advised DHS to disregard your bill attempting to ban safe and effective less-lethal tools that agents need to escalate dangerous situations.”Read statement
Law professor Kevin Johnson says California has "very limited, if any, powers" over how federal officers are armed
“The state has very limited, if any, powers in dictating to the federal government how its officers are armed”Read statement
Newsom's office says California "cannot dictate federal immigration policy" but can set requirements for law-enforcement practices where federal enforcement operates in the state
“California cannot dictate federal immigration policy. But where federal immigration enforcement operates within California, the state can establish and enforce state-law requirements governing state property, state resources, detention facilities, public records, law-enforcement practices and access to state-administered programs.”Read statement
Cite this record
- Publisher
- The Dispute Index
- Title
- Arreguín says the bill is "principally focused on local law enforcement" and that he supports it because he does not want local police to use the gloves
- First published
- Last updated
- Permalink
- https://disputeindex.com/events/4158-closing-the-senate-floor-debate-on-august-31
Last updated marks the most recent saved version of this published statement.
The Dispute Index. "Arreguín says the bill is "principally focused on local law enforcement" and that he supports it because he does not want local police to use the gloves". First published: 2026-10-01. Last updated: 2026-10-01. https://disputeindex.com/events/4158-closing-the-senate-floor-debate-on-august-31