LAPD cop recorded colleagues' racist and sexist remarks. Will his prosecution chill whistleblowers?

Los Angeles Police Officer Daniel Flores thought he was doing the right thing.

Colleagues in the department’s Recruitment and Employment Division were making what he said were racist, sexist and homophobic remarks in the office, and he wanted to report them to superiors.

So he started secretly recording them.

In June, Flores, 43, sued the department, claiming the LAPD had created a hostile workplace. In his lawsuit, he said he made the recordings in what he believed was part of a “lawful investigation as a police officer.''

Now, the tables have turned. It's Flores who is the target.

Los Angeles County District Attorney Nathan Hochman has filed 16 felony counts of eavesdropping or recording confidential communications against Flores.

“We are going to enforce the laws to prevent police officers from using illegal means to achieve their goals, even if that goal in that individual’s mind is to root out bigotry,” Hochman said during a news conference last week.

Flores could face up to 13 years in state prison if convicted. On Monday, he pleaded not guilty in Superior Court.

Reaction to the charges

The district attorney’s decision to file criminal charges against Flores has sparked a firestorm of controversy, with some saying the charges will create a chilling effect on people who want to report misconduct at the Police Department.

“While I understand that it is inappropriate and a crime to record colleagues without their consent, these charges certainly send the wrong message that calling out egregious behavior could land you in prison,” Mayor Karen Bass said in a statement. “I am worried that this will deter whistleblowers and discourage officers from using the appropriate reporting channels in the future."

Los Angeles City Councilmember Hugo Soto-Martínez introduced a resolution Tuesday condemning Hochman for his decision to charge Flores.

Police abuse activists also weighed in.

“I think that’s Nathan Hochman’s intention — is to make sure he maintains that blue wall of silence,” said Melina Abdullah of Black Lives Matter L.A. “DA Hochman is continuing to show whose side he’s on — that he’s not on the people’s side.”

Hochman has said his decision to file the criminal case is appropriate, and that Flores had other legal ways to report alleged misconduct by fellow officers.

“He had a number of legitimate avenues to go through,” Hochman said.

Police Chief Jim McDonnell said Friday that Flores’ complaint triggered an internal investigation into 18 other officers. Seventeen faced disciplinary complaints, he said.

The chief declined to say what discipline, if any, the officers received.

About the 122 recordings

California has one of the most restrictive recording laws in the nation, prohibiting someone from recording anyone without their consent. The law requires all parties to a conversation to agree to be recorded before a recording can begin, unless somebody has a court order allowing them to record.

“These laws do, I think, interfere with people's ability to gather information, including information that might be seen as misconduct by the people that they are recording,” said UCLA Law School Professor Eugene Volokh. “This is what I sometimes call the dark side of privacy."

But there are exceptions for police officers who are engaging in official investigations.

In his lawsuit, Flores claims co-workers made various racist, dehumanizing, misogynistic and homophobic comments.

He said it all started when a new supervisor took over the Police Department’s recruitment division and “repeatedly made derogatory statements and fostered an environment in which other employees were encouraged to do the same.''

The lawsuit said Flores submitted his complaints about his co-workers to LAPD Internal Affairs and the Los Angeles Police Commission in January 2025. That’s what triggered the internal investigation.

Flores turned over 122 recordings in all.

The District Attorney’s Office charged Flores on July 31.

In a 27-page brief filed Monday, prosecutors suggested Flores’ motives were not altruistic. The filing alleges Flores “manipulated conversations by initiating or participating in discussions about a particular topic before activating the recording device, then ceasing his own participation.”

Hochman’s brief referred to some of the officers’ comments as “locker room talk.” Prosecutors also accuse Flores of editing the recordings to hide his own racist, sexist and homophobic remarks.

The district attorney based that claim largely on what the officers — the alleged victims in the criminal case — told detectives. According to prosecutors, the officers said Flores often talked about wanting to win the “LAPD lottery,” meaning he wanted a big payout from his civil lawsuit.

LAist reached out to Flores’ attorney, but did not receive a response. However, the defense has argued Flores is protected by the California Invasion of Privacy Act, which allows secret recordings by police officers.

Volokh, from UCLA, said the law allows police officers to make some kinds of recordings in secret.

“Obviously, we know that there are recordings done by police officers in various kinds of investigations,” Volokh said. “But it's not unlimited latitude. It’s not enough that the police officer be well motivated. He has to be acting within his scope of his authority as a police officer.”

For that reason, Hochman said, Flores stepped over the line.

“In our all-party consent state, where California has been one of the nation's leaders in protecting privacy and deterring illegal eavesdropping for over a half a century, one cannot simply choose to break the law because one wants to pursue a personal agenda,” Hochman said Friday.

Holding the line

Soto-Martínez said Tuesday that Hochman should drop the charges immediately.

“The District Attorney is sending a chilling message: If you report misconduct through the appropriate channels, you could be prosecuted,” said Soto-Martínez. “Beyond that, dismissing racist, misogynistic and homophobic behavior as ‘locker room talk’ is unacceptable.”

But Hochman said at the Friday news conference that he believes allowing a police officer to secretly record colleagues would signal to fellow officers that other misconduct would be acceptable, too.

“If we don’t hold the line there, where does it next take us?” he said.

Hochman used the example of an officer using illegal means to arrest a drug dealer by planting evidence. He said that there are implications for non-police officers as well.

“We want to make sure nobody cuts corners and decides they want to go ahead and record a conversation when they come over to your home, when they come over to your workplace, when they come over to a social setting.”

Flores remains free on his own recognizance while the case is pending.