Why California Banned Electric Restraint Gloves
By Darius Spearman (africanelements)
Support African Elements at patreon.com/africanelements and hear recent news in a single playlist. Additionally, you can gain early access to ad-free video content.
The Flashpoint in Sacramento
In the final hours of the 2026 legislative session, California lawmakers passed landmark civil rights legislation. The state approved Assembly Bill 2760 to ban wearable electroshock devices across law enforcement and corrections (legiscan.com, calmatters.org). Lawmakers also passed Assembly Bill 2230 and Senate Bill 423 to restrict federal immigration operations inside public spaces (ca.gov, calmatters.org). These companion bills bar aggressive immigration sweeps inside sensitive community sites (santaclaraca.gov, calmatters.org).
Headlines portrayed these rapid votes as a sudden reaction against federal authorities (calmatters.org). However, the measures reflect decades of community organizing and civil rights litigation (motherjones.com, latimes.com). The laws address the rapid spread of experimental weapons in prisons and jails (calmatters.org, motherjones.com). They also safeguard municipal spaces from warrantless surveillance and detentions (santaclaraca.gov, americanimmigrationcouncil.org). The legislation connects carceral technology directly to the historical defense of human dignity (eji.org, kqed.org).
Echoes of the Stun Belt Era
Wearable electroshock hardware has an ugly history in American courtrooms and penal institutions (motherjones.com, motherjones.com). During the 1990s, correctional facilities adopted remote-activated stun belts (motherjones.com). The devices were marketed as non-lethal compliance tools (motherjones.com). Authorities routinely fastened these fifty-thousand-volt belts to the waists of criminal defendants (eji.org, justia.com). Officials insisted the equipment would only deter courtroom violence and escape attempts (wlu.edu, justia.com).
The weapons soon became instruments of judicial punishment and racial intimidation (eji.org, motherjones.com). In 1998, a municipal judge in Long Beach ordered a bailiff to shock Ronnie Hawkins (eji.org, justia.com). Hawkins was an African American man defending himself during a trial (eji.org). The judge activated the eight-second shock simply because Hawkins interrupted her (eji.org, justia.com). The resulting lawsuit, Hawkins v. Comparet-Cassani, ruled that such shocks violated constitutional protections (justia.com). In 2002, the California Supreme Court placed severe restrictions on stun belts (wlu.edu). Yet law enforcement manufacturers continued to develop similar pain devices (motherjones.com, amnesty.org).
Timeline: Evolution of Wearable Electroshock Tools
Stun Belts in Custody
50,000-volt remote-controlled belts enter courtrooms and jails, leading to systemic abuse against defendants.
Judicial Intervention
Federal and state court rulings strictly limit remote shock restraints after egregious civil rights violations.
Direct-Touch Shock Gloves
Makers market conductive gloves for hands-on control, selling thousands to local departments and federal agencies.
Sacramento Sets the Ban
Assembly Bill 2760 outlaws wearable shock gear to protect detained populations from invisible electrical force.
From Stun Belts to Touch Restraints
Modern weapons manufacturers transformed electroshock tech into wearable tactical gear (complianttechnologies.net). A manufacturer known as Compliant Technologies introduced the G.L.O.V.E. device (motherjones.com, complianttechnologies.net). The acronym stands for Generated Low Output Voltage Emitter (motherjones.com). Unlike dart-firing Tasers, this weapon requires no projectile lines or darts (motherjones.com, police1.com). Officers simply touch or grab an individual to deliver an electrical charge (motherjones.com, complianttechnologies.net).
Proponents claim the equipment uses low voltage to ensure physical safety (police1.com, police1.com). The devices pulse between two hundred and four hundred volts (police1.com). However, civil rights advocates note this design conceals electroshock pain within ordinary physical contact (motherjones.com, motherjones.com). The application of force leaves few visible marks for observers (motherjones.com, motherjones.com). It effectively bypasses the visual detection of bystander cameras (motherjones.com). This shift mirrors the historical shift toward mass incarceration and aggressive policing (motherjones.com).
Cardiovascular Risks and Health Disparities
Wearable shock devices pose severe physiological hazards for vulnerable people (motherjones.com, motherjones.com). Lawmakers raised grave alarms over electrical charges applied directly to human skin (calmatters.org, digitaldemocracy.org). Direct electrical currents can disrupt regular heart rhythms (motherjones.com). Shocks can trigger ventricular fibrillation or sudden cardiac arrest (motherjones.com, motherjones.com). The threat multiplies when an individual experiences extreme physical exhaustion or panic (motherjones.com).
These hazards fall heavily on Black detainees and communities of color (motherjones.com, motherjones.com). Systemic medical bias leaves African Americans with disproportionate rates of untreated hypertension (motherjones.com). Disparities in cardiovascular health make electrical discharges especially perilous (motherjones.com). Furthermore, carceral medical staff often delay treatment during custodial emergencies (freedomforimmigrants.org, humanrightsfirst.org). Introducing concealed shock tools into neglectful jail environments risks preventable fatalities (motherjones.com, freedomforimmigrants.org). California lawmakers decided that such unmonitored force was too dangerous to tolerate (calmatters.org, digitaldemocracy.org).
Federal Enforcement and Shock Gear Procurement
The battle escalated when federal agencies moved to acquire the equipment at scale (motherjones.com, motherjones.com). In August 2026, the Department of Homeland Security published a major procurement request (motherjones.com, motherjones.com). Immigration and Customs Enforcement arranged a contract with Compliant Technologies (motherjones.com). The federal contract carried an initial value of sixteen million dollars (motherjones.com). The agreement allowed spending up to twenty million dollars for six thousand pairs of shock gloves (motherjones.com).
Federal officials claimed deportation officers needed the devices to handle combative individuals (motherjones.com, motherjones.com). Yet immigrant advocates saw the purchase as an escalation of coercive force (motherjones.com). The federal government sought to distribute these shock weapons across field offices nationwide (motherjones.com). The procurement bypassed independent health evaluations and transparent public oversight (motherjones.com, motherjones.com). Sacramento lawmakers viewed the contract as an urgent warning sign (calmatters.org, digitaldemocracy.org). State leaders moved rapidly to insulate California facilities from this experimental technology (legiscan.com, calmatters.org).
Racial Disparities in Federal Immigration Custody
Source: Compiled from civil rights reporting by Black Alliance for Just Immigration and Freedom for Immigrants.
Black Immigrants in the Crosshairs
The federal deployment of electroshock gloves creates distinct dangers for Black immigrants (freedomforimmigrants.org, freedomforimmigrants.org). Research by advocacy organizations highlights severe systemic bias inside detention facilities (freedomforimmigrants.org, freedomforimmigrants.org). Black migrants comprise roughly six percent of all people in civil immigration detention (freedomforimmigrants.org). Yet they file twenty-eight percent of all formal abuse complaints (freedomforimmigrants.org). They also account for over half of all life-threatening abuse reports (freedomforimmigrants.org).
In addition, guards send Black detainees to solitary confinement at six times the average rate (freedomforimmigrants.org). Black asylum seekers frequently report excessive physical force and punitive chokeholds (freedomforimmigrants.org, humanrightsfirst.org). Arming federal officers with conductive shock gloves puts another weapon into this punitive system (motherjones.com, freedomforimmigrants.org). These realities reflect the ongoing pursuit of racial justice across institutional settings (motherjones.com). The lack of demographic tracking shields abusive officers from outside scrutiny (freedomforimmigrants.org). California advocates insisted that the state must refuse complicity in these operations (calmatters.org, kqed.org).
A Sheriff Defends the Device
Resistance to the proposed ban emerged from an unexpected source (calmatters.org, calmatters.org). Sacramento County Sheriff Jim Cooper strongly opposed the legislation (calmatters.org, abc10.com). Cooper is the first African American sheriff in the history of the county (abc10.com, abc10.com). He previously served eight years as a moderate Democratic lawmaker in the state assembly (calmatters.org, abc10.com). Cooper held a public demonstration to defend the electroshock gloves (calmatters.org, abc10.com).
Cooper announced his department had already purchased ten pairs of gloves and ten bands (calmatters.org, abc10.com). The county spent thirty-five thousand dollars on this tactical hardware (calmatters.org, abc10.com). Cooper argued the equipment allows deputies to subdue violent individuals with less blunt-force trauma (calmatters.org, abc10.com). He maintained that electric contact avoids the broken bones caused by batons and fists (calmatters.org, abc10.com). He criticized state lawmakers for passing what he characterized as a performative ban (calmatters.org, calmatters.org). Nevertheless, civil rights organizations rejected the argument that shock compliance ensures safety (calmatters.org, digitaldemocracy.org).
The Black Caucus and the Legislative Sprint
Assemblymember Dr. LaShae Sharp-Collins authored Assembly Bill 2760 to stop the weapon proliferation (legiscan.com, calmatters.org). Sharp-Collins represents San Diego and serves as an Assistant Majority Leader (goldrushcam.com, digitaldemocracy.org). She brought extensive experience from her former service with the San Diego NAACP (goldrushcam.com). Sharp-Collins stated that vulnerable communities must not serve as testing grounds for electroshock weapons (calmatters.org, digitaldemocracy.org). Members of the California Legislative Black Caucus quickly joined her effort as principal co-authors (legiscan.com, legiscan.com).
The legislative clock added immense pressure to the effort (calmatters.org, calmatters.org). Lawmakers faced a strict constitutional deadline of midnight on August 31 (calmatters.org). Sharp-Collins utilized the gut-and-amend parliamentary maneuver to advance the proposal (calmatters.org, calmatters.org). She emptied an existing bill and inserted the electroshock ban language (legiscan.com, calmatters.org). Lawmakers approved the legislation along partisan lines before the session adjourned (legiscan.com, calmatters.org). The bill prohibits state and local agencies from buying or using wearable shock gear (legiscan.com). It also requires an independent study by the state Department of Justice (legiscan.com).
The Electroshock Weapon Footprint
Protecting Public Spaces and Transparency
Lawmakers also passed broader protections for immigrant communities across the state (ca.gov, calmatters.org). Assembly Bill 2230 prevents immigration agents from staging sweeps in municipal facilities without warrants (ca.gov, santaclaraca.gov). The policy covers administrative offices, municipal libraries, and public community centers (ca.gov, santaclaraca.gov). In Santa Clara, Council Policy 056 already blocked federal agents from using city garages as detainee checkpoints (santaclaraca.gov). California continues to expand legal walls between public spaces and civil immigration operations (calmatters.org, americanimmigrationcouncil.org).
Lawmakers addressed private detention oversight through Senate Bill 423 (calmatters.org). Authored by Senator Lena Gonzalez, the law opens emergency call records to the public (calmatters.org). Private facilities must now disclose 911 audio recordings and emergency dispatches (calmatters.org). The mandate followed serious medical neglect and deaths at facilities like the Otay Mesa Detention Center (calmatters.org). The policy ensures that privately operated immigrant prisons face genuine community accountability (calmatters.org). The legislature made sure private detention facilities cannot hide in-custody crises from the public (calmatters.org).
The Constitutional Divide Over Federalism
The passage of these measures sets up an unavoidable constitutional struggle (calmatters.org, studicata.com). Under the Supremacy Clause, federal statutes override conflicting state regulations (studicata.com, metnews.com). The Department of Homeland Security declared that federal agents will not obey the state ban (calmatters.org, studicata.com). Federal officials argue that states cannot regulate the equipment choices of national officers (studicata.com, metnews.com). State courts acknowledge that Sacramento cannot directly control federal field agents (studicata.com, metnews.com).
However, the Tenth Amendment gives California sovereign control over its own police powers (studicata.com, metnews.com). The state can strictly forbid local police from touching or deploying shock gloves (legiscan.com, studicata.com). Sacramento can also bar municipal funds and property from assisting federal operations (ca.gov, santaclaraca.gov). This legal boundary reflects the enduring struggle over federalism that shapes civil rights protections (studicata.com). The legal wall protects local resources from federal commandeering (studicata.com). California continues to test the constitutional boundaries of local protection and community safety (calmatters.org, calmatters.org).
The Enduring Struggle for Bodily Autonomy
The campaign against electroshock restraints highlights a continuous historical struggle (eji.org, motherjones.com). From nineteenth-century involuntary servitude to modern detention cells, carceral systems continually refine tools of bodily subjugation (motherjones.com). Remote shock belts and wearable gloves emerged under the label of officer safety (motherjones.com, motherjones.com). Yet both technologies function to compel physical submission through sheer electrical agony (eji.org, motherjones.com). The racial patterns in their deployment reveal a persistent disregard for marginalized lives (eji.org, freedomforimmigrants.org).
California established a decisive boundary by banning electroshock gloves in custodial environments (legiscan.com, calmatters.org). Lawmakers asserted that public facilities must remain safe spaces rather than staging grounds for raids (ca.gov, santaclaraca.gov). The legislative victory in Sacramento demonstrates how public policy can push back against coercive devices (legiscan.com, digitaldemocracy.org). While federal challenges loom, the state demonstrated that mechanical innovations cannot bypass human rights (calmatters.org, motherjones.com). The struggle to defend human dignity within carceral walls continues into a new era (eji.org, calmatters.org).
About the Author
Darius Spearman is a professor of Black Studies at San Diego City College, where he has been teaching for over 20 years. He is the founder of African Elements, a media platform dedicated to providing educational resources on the history and culture of the African diaspora. Through his work, Spearman aims to empower and educate by bringing historical context to contemporary issues affecting the Black community.
