The Los Angeles district attorney has dropped felony charges against a police officer who secretly recorded his colleagues making racist remarks.
Los Angeles Police Department Officer Daniel Flores was charged in July with 16 felony counts after submitting audio to internal affairs in early 2025. The tapes, recorded within the LAPD’s recruitment division, captured officers making explicit remarks and were first disclosed by the Los Angeles Times.
District Attorney Nathan Hochman had initially charged Flores under California’s decades-old eavesdropping statute, which mandates the consent of all parties present to legally record conversations. The original charges carried a maximum sentence of 13 years in prison.
The charges sparked swift backlash, particularly from Flores’ attorney, Alan Jackson. Speaking to the LA Times in July, Jackson warned that the case communicated that “if you document bigotry inside the LAPD, you will be the one who ends up in a courtroom. It tells them the safe move is to hear slurs and say nothing.”
Fuck Hochman. There should never have been charges, and the racist pigs should have been fired. Charging a good faith whistleblower with any crime is vile. Hochman is lawless, fascist scum.
Yeah, he didn’t like the press his efforts were bringing, so he backtracked. If this hadn’t hit the news he’d be happily prosecuting.
The shit-eating fucker is still prosecuting, but as misdemeanors instead of felonies.
Well I feel confident saying that any defense attorney who goes up against them would have a real easy job if I were on the jury. Maybe they can’t be arrested, but holy shit can they become a liability to the force
That’s the thing… You don’t have to do an actual crime to be reprimanded or dismissed by your employer. I imagine that committing hate speech is a fireable offense in pretty much any other job in America. It’s crazy that the bar to fire a cop is set at prove they did a hate crime.
It’s the LAPD I’d be shocked if the union contract didn’t protect against dismissal over hate speech
Because of their union. Yet they want no one else to have one.
Remember to play it close to the vest during jury selection.
Yep. But also, for an opportunity to get on my soapbox, if you don’t genuinely need to not serve in jury duty, don’t try to get out of it. When we have a culture where everyone tries to get out of jury duty we find ourselves in a society where laws are enforced by people too dumb to get kicked out of a jury.
California is a two party consent state. He broke the law by recording them, and should be charged just as a civilian would. Or harsher because he’s a cop.
But yes, the other cops should be fired.
The Constitution gives us the right to record our government officials in the performance of their duties.
Furthermore, whistleblower protections exist precisely for cases like this where something much more important is being uncovered.
recording your coworkers joking that someone died from eating too many tacos isn’t really a case of whistleblowing because saying racist stuff isn’t illegal. so this isn’t precisely why whistleblowing laws exist at all.
You don’t have to witness someone breaking an actual law to enact whistleblower protections, it can cover you when you reasonably believe there is “evidence of a violation of any law, rule, or regulation; gross mismanagement; a gross waste of funds; an abuse of authority; or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety.”
So yes, this is precisely why whistleblower protections exist.
whistleblower protections don’t allow you to break the law in order to gather evidence in any way that you may see fit. so it’s still illegal to record your co-workers without their knowledge even if they are being racist.
so no, this isn’t what whistleblower protections cover at all, which is why this person is still being charged. I hope that clears it up for you.
Police officers do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy while on the job.
Being charged does not mean you have committed a crime.
ok, so now you have abandoned your argument that this person should be afforded whistleblower protections for breaking the law and now you are arguing that they didn’t break the law?
you are wrong either way. becoming a police officer doesn’t automatically sacrifice ones ‘reasonable expectation of privacy’.
like so many of the other redditors you’re confusing how you feel the world should work with how it actually does. you can argue with me forever but you are objectively wrong about this.
Wut? When did I claim that? My original claim was that a person didn’t have to witness someone breaking a law to claim whistleblower protections. It can be utilized for something as small as witnessing misconduct.
They do while they are on duty as a police officer… They still have a expectation of privacy as when acting as a private citizen.
Think youight be projecting here…
Unfortunately US two party laws were made as a knee-jerk reaction to Nixon’s wiretapping; the US doesn’t deal in “expectations of privacy” like more sensible countries do.
Making an audio recording should be no different to getting out a pen and paper and making a written recording. Keeping a personal record should not be a crime. It’s what you do with the recording that matters.
But that’s how things should be, the law is often not right in this area. As others have said, the whistleblower broke the law here.
That’s going to be decided by the judicial system. It’s perfectly legal to record officers while they are on duty. The debate will be whether being on the clock and in a police station is the same as operating in their official capacity. Which I think is a pretty easy argument to make in court.
But it sounds like they do allow you to record your coworkers if they’re breaking a rule such as being grossly offensive about their colleagues…
I think people in positions of power should not be racist fuckwits making light of rape, but fuck me, right?
The bigger issue there is the implication that they themselves commit rapes on vulnerable people.
Is consent required when the flock cameras record you?
Not in most jurisdictions where the concept of “expectation of privacy” (and the lack of it in public) exists