SB 264 makes it a misdemeanor for people who are not legally authorized peace officers to wear, use, make, sell, loan, or transfer official-looking police badges, uniforms, or identifying materials with the intent to impersonate or fraudulently induce belief that they are peace officers. The text criminalizes both physical impersonation and 'credible' impersonation conducted via websites or electronic means when used to defraud someone.
The bill differentiates penalties by act and actor: simple uses and transfers carry shorter jail terms and fines, producing or selling badges invites a much larger fine, and convictions during a declared state or local emergency trigger higher monetary penalties and a possible sentence under a different sentencing provision. The measure also requires uniform vendors to verify buyers, allows agencies to issue limited ‘honorably retired’ identification, and directs local agencies to seize counterfeit or unauthorized items when they bring charges.
At a Glance
What It Does
SB 264 criminalizes wearing, using, making, selling, loaning, or transferring badges, insignia, uniforms, or identification that falsely purport to authorize someone as a peace officer, and it criminalizes credible online impersonation for purposes of fraud. It requires seizure of such items when charges are filed and imposes special penalties for conduct during declared emergencies.
Who It Affects
Law enforcement agencies, uniform and badge vendors, manufacturers and sellers of badges, retired peace officers who receive agency-issued retirement identification, entertainment productions using props, and anyone who might impersonate an officer—especially in electronic spaces.
Why It Matters
The bill creates clearer criminal and compliance obligations around badges and uniforms, raises enforcement tools and penalties during emergencies, and forces vendors to adopt verification practices. That alters risk calculations for sellers, agencies issuing retired badges, and entities that use authentic-looking uniforms as props.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
SB 264 draws a broad line around acts that create the appearance of lawful authority. It makes it unlawful for someone who is not a legally authorized peace officer to willfully wear or use authorized uniforms, badges, emblems, or written identification with the intent to fraudulently impersonate an officer or induce others to believe they are one.
The text explicitly covers impersonation carried out on the internet or by other electronic means when the purpose is to defraud.
The bill tiers culpability and penalties. Wearing or using an actual badge with intent to impersonate is a misdemeanor with a possible one‑year county jail sentence or $2,000 fine.
Less severe uses, or manufacturing and transferring false or deceptively similar insignia, are misdemeanors with shorter maximum jail terms, but the law attaches a steep civil-style fine — up to $15,000 — specifically for makers or sellers of badges under those circumstances. When a local agency files charges, the statute requires the agency to seize the offending badge or item.SB 264 adds compliance duties for private vendors: sellers of law enforcement uniforms must confirm a purchaser is an employee of the agency shown on the uniform by checking a photo ID and obtaining written identification on the agency’s letterhead.
Vendors who fail to verify face misdemeanor exposure and fines. The bill also carves out a prop exemption for film, television, video, and theatrical uses, but only if the identified agency gives prior written permission.Recognizing legitimate retirees, the bill permits agency heads to issue distinctive identification that explicitly says “Honorably Retired,” requires visible marking if a badge is not mounted as a commemorative item, and allows agencies to revoke that identification if it’s misused.
The statute narrowly excludes officers who accepted a service retirement in lieu of termination from the “honorably retired” designation.Finally, SB 264 raises the stakes during declared states or local emergencies: convictions for impersonation during such emergencies carry the possibility of higher fines (up to $10,000) and sentencing under a different statutory subdivision referenced in the bill. Those enhanced penalties are designed to deter misuse of perceived authority when public safety is already strained.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill makes online or electronic 'credible' impersonation of a peace officer for the purpose of defrauding another a misdemeanor under subdivision (a).
Wearing or using a peace officer’s badge with fraudulent intent is a misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in county jail and a fine up to $2,000 (subdivision (b)).
Making or selling badges that falsely purport to be authorized exposes the maker or seller to a fine up to $15,000, in addition to misdemeanor liability for other actors (subdivision (c)).
Local law enforcement that files charges must seize the badge, insignia, or identifying material described in the charge (subdivision (c)(2)).
Uniform vendors must verify purchasers via photo ID plus agency letterhead confirmation or face a misdemeanor fine up to $1,000; a prop exemption requires prior written permission from the identified agency (subdivision (f)).
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Prohibits willful impersonation and online/electronic fraud
This section criminalizes wearing, exhibiting, or using authorized uniforms, insignia, or identifying materials with the intent to fraudulently impersonate a peace officer, and it separately covers willful and credible impersonation via internet websites or other electronic means when used to defraud. Practically, prosecutors must prove intent to defraud or an intent to induce belief that the defendant is a peace officer; the text specifically expands existing impersonation coverage into electronic conduct.
Badge-specific misdemeanor with higher jail exposure
Subdivision (b) singles out badges and treats willful use of an actual badge with fraudulent intent as a misdemeanor carrying up to one year in county jail and a $2,000 fine. It also covers badges that merely resemble an authorized badge so closely that an ordinary reasonable person would be deceived. That 'look‑alike' language is aimed at both counterfeit badges and near-replicas, bringing both authentic-seeming counterfeits and close imitations within reach of criminal sanction.
Bans manufacturing/selling/transferring and creates a large maker/seller fine
Subdivision (c) makes it a misdemeanor to willfully make, sell, loan, give, transfer, wear, or use badges, insignia, or documents that falsely purport to authorize a peace officer, with penalties of up to six months in jail or a $2,000 fine. Crucially, it adds a separate financial penalty for those who make or sell badges under these circumstances — up to $15,000 — creating a heavy civil-style deterrent for manufacturers and vendors who traffic in counterfeit items.
Enhanced penalties for acts during declared emergencies
When impersonation occurs during a state of emergency or local emergency (as defined elsewhere), subdivision (d) raises the penalty exposure: a convicted person faces the standard county jail term or a fine, or may be sentenced under a referenced sentencing subdivision with a fine up to $10,000. This provision escalates consequences where misuse of perceived authority can have increased public-safety effects, but it also imports another statutory sentencing rule that will require cross-referencing to determine exact custody implications.
Agency-issued 'Honorably Retired' identification and revocation authority
Subdivision (e) permits heads of agencies that employ peace officers to issue retirement identification that clearly states 'Honorably Retired,' and it requires that badges issued to retirees bear a visible indication unless mounted as a plaque. Agencies may revoke that identification if it’s misused. The provision also excludes officers who accepted a service retirement in lieu of termination from qualifying as 'honorably retired,' limiting potential misuse of the retirement label.
Vendor verification rules and prop exemption
This clause obligates vendors of law enforcement uniforms to verify that purchasers are bona fide employees of the identified agency by checking a photo ID and written identification on agency letterhead; vendors who fail to verify face a misdemeanor fine up to $1,000. The subdivision exempts sales where the uniform will be used solely as a prop for film, TV, video, or theatrical events—but only if prior written permission is obtained from the agency identified on the uniform, which creates an administrative step for productions to clear in advance.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Criminal Justice across all five countries.
Explore Criminal Justice in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Local law enforcement agencies — gain a statutory duty to seize offending badges and clearer criminal tools to deter impersonation and fraud, which helps maintain public trust and reduces impersonator-enabled scams.
- Members of the public during emergencies — benefit from heightened penalties aimed at deterring impersonation when public safety is most vulnerable and when fraudulent assertions of authority can cause greater harm.
- Retired peace officers with agency approval — benefit from an explicit pathway to carry commemorative or retirement badges labeled 'Honorably Retired,' which protects legitimate displays of service while distinguishing them from active authority.
- Entertainment productions that obtain prior written permission — benefit from a clear prop exemption, allowing use of authentic-looking uniforms when the production secures agency approval in advance.
Who Bears the Cost
- Uniform and badge vendors and manufacturers — face verification compliance costs, the risk of misdemeanor exposure and fines (including a steep $15,000 fine for makers/sellers of unauthorized badges), and potential reputational damage if they fail to verify buyers.
- Local law enforcement agencies — assume enforcement responsibilities including seizing items and processing charges, which creates an operational burden and evidence-handling work linked to prosecutions.
- Small costume and prop shops or independent sellers — bear legal risk and administrative friction because the vendor verification rule and the required prior agency permission for props could obstruct legitimate sales and productions.
- Individuals who possess genuine-looking badges or collectibles — face a heightened risk of prosecution if prosecutors interpret 'willful' use or resemblance narrowly; owners may need to prove lawful possession or agency authorization.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is balancing deterrence of dangerous impersonation—particularly during emergencies—against avoiding overcriminalization and undue burdens on legitimate vendors, retirees, productions, and collectors; the statute tightens tools for enforcement and prevention but does so in ways that may be costly to administer and ambiguous to apply in edge cases.
SB 264 tightens several levers at once — criminal prohibitions, monetary deterrents for makers/sellers, vendor verification duties, seizure authority, and an emergency uplift — but those levers interact in ways that raise practical questions. The statute depends on intent‑based elements ('intent of fraudulently impersonating' or 'fraudulently inducing belief'), which are standard in impersonation cases but often hard to prove; proving online 'credible' impersonation adds evidentiary complexity around perception and causation.
The large $15,000 maker/seller fine sits alongside misdemeanor exposure for other actors, creating asymmetric risks that could push enforcement toward civil fines for manufacturers while individuals face criminal charges.
Operationally, enforcement rests with local agencies that must seize items when filing charges; that creates workload and chain‑of‑custody issues for evidence units. Vendor verification relies on agency letterhead and photo ID, but the statute does not prescribe anti‑fraud checks beyond those documents — leaving vendors exposed if an agent for an agency fabricates authorization.
The prop exemption is useful but creates a procedural hurdle: prior written permission from the identified agency is a blunt instrument that could be slow or inconsistently applied, chilling legitimate theatrical or film uses. Finally, the bill’s title mentions firefighters, but the text exclusively addresses peace officers and the cross‑references to sentencing provisions (Section 1170(h)) and the emergency definition (Section 463) require close statutory reconciliation to determine actual custody exposure and the scope of the emergency uplift.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.