LaShae Sharp-Collins is a Democratic member of the California State Assembly for the 79th District, which covers parts of southeastern San Diego, El Cajon, La Mesa and Lemon Grove. She took office on December 2, 2024, and holds a leadership post as Assistant Majority Leader for Policy and Research. Before her election she worked for the San Diego County Office of Education and taught Africana studies at San Diego State University.
Case
California's AB 2760 bars all law enforcement, including federal agents, from using electric shock gloves. Newsom and the author defend the ban. DHS and a federal prosecutor reject California's authority over federal agents. As of October 1, 2026, no court has ruled.
Role at the time: Assemblymember (D-San Diego) and author of AB 2760, answering a reporter's question at a Capitol news conference
Response to this claim
First Assistant U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli said on September 29, 2026 that California has no jurisdiction to regulate federal agents and that he had advised the Department of Homeland Security to disregard AB 2760.
“And we know that some things we probably cannot obviously regulate, but we have to start somewhere.”
Relative to the ban as applied to federal officers, Sharp-Collins keeps backing the bill while conceding that the state probably cannot regulate some things, in answer to a question about legal challenges. She does not say which parts of the bill she has in mind. The answer addresses the question of state power, not safety. We used Mixed or conditional because she combines support for going ahead with an acknowledgment that some of what the state tries to regulate may be out of reach. The closest competing label is Defended or excused, because she does not withdraw the bill's application to federal officers and says the state has to start somewhere.
Role at the time: Assemblymember (D-San Diego) and author of AB 2760, speaking at a Capitol news conference
Response to this claim
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 finally, the largest planned purchase of these gloves is by ICE, which was announced, and that plans is actually to purchase $20 million worth of these gloves. This news and dangerous tool, but also just the fact that it is a new and dangerous tool, will be in the hands of our least trained and most lawless law enforcement. That is one of my biggest concerns, and that's also everyone's concern.”
Relative to the ban as applied to federal officers, Sharp-Collins defends it by pointing to ICE's planned purchase and calling the gloves new and dangerous. The remarks answer the safety question and single out ICE officers as the users she is most concerned about, but they do not argue that California has the power to bind federal officers. We used Defended or excused because she supports the ban and ties it to the federal purchase. The closest competing label is Mixed or conditional, because in a later answer at the same event she acknowledged limits on what the state can regulate, which we record as a separate statement.
Statement dates: August 27, 2026
Statement dates: August 27, 2026
Statement dates: August 27, 2026
