What justifies concealment in genuine exigencies is that it is exceptional. Stops without identification must remain rare exceptions, not routine practice. Doornbos, 868 F.3d at 584 (permitting plainclothes officers to initiate stops without identifying themselves “must remain a rare exception, not the rule”). Anonymous policing “provokes panic and hostility from confused civilians who have no way of knowing that the stranger who seeks to detain them is an officer.” Doornbos, 868 F.3d at 584. “Self-defense is a basic right,” McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742, 767 (2010), “and many civilians who would peaceably comply with a police officer’s order will understandably be ready to resist or flee when accosted—let alone grabbed—by an unidentified person who is not in a police officer’s uniform.” Doornbos, 868 F.3d at 585.
What is happening here bears no resemblance to those recognized exceptions. This is not an undercover operation. No specific danger has been identified that required these agents to be masked for this arrest. This is a deliberate choice to conduct routine civil immigration enforcement through masked anonymous agents operating without warrants across the interior of the United States.
When concealment becomes policy rather than exception, the government has not invoked an exigency. It has abolished the rule that exigency was meant to qualify.