Los Angeles County District Attorney Nathan Hochman reduced 16 felony eavesdropping counts against LAPD Officer Daniel Flores to misdemeanors in the LAPD eavesdropping case Daniel Flores. Hochman said Wednesday the case would likely be resolved through diversion, after Flores faced charges over recordings made last year inside the Los Angeles Police Department.
Flores made more than 100 recordings of colleagues in the department’s recruitment division, capturing racist, homophobic and sexist remarks. If convicted on the original charges, he could have faced up to 13 years in prison. His attorney expected to request a diversion agreement Thursday in a downtown courtroom.
Nathan Hochman and Daniel Flores
Hochman called the filing “crystal clear” in Wednesday morning remarks downtown. He said, “The message was not being clearly interpreted about us being protective of whistleblowers.”
Alan Jackson, Flores’ attorney, responded: “Following this disposition, 16 felonies will be dismissed with no plea, no punishment, and no record, because Daniel Flores told the troubling truth about what he heard inside his own department. As the investigators themselves concluded, there was no reasonable expectation of privacy in this open-plan LAPD office. That isn’t eavesdropping, it’s being a witness. Mr. Flores has committed no crime.”
Los Angeles Police Department recordings
According to court records, one officer was recorded calling a young LAPD recruit “rapeable.” Flores lodged a complaint with the LAPD’s inspector general’s office and said he hoped the officers he taped making inappropriate remarks would face discipline.
The case drew backlash from L.A. Mayor Karen Bass and some prosecutors, who called the original filing “insane.” Flores’ attorneys argued the recordings were allowed under the California Invasion of Privacy Act because he was acting in the course of his duties as a police officer.
Downtown court diversion
The reduction changes the case’s path in court: misdemeanor charges and diversion put the matter on a shorter track than the original felony case. The practical question now is whether the court accepts a diversion agreement that keeps Flores out of a felony conviction while setting conditions he would have to satisfy for about a year.
For Flores, that means the fight has shifted from the threat of a prison sentence to the terms of diversion. For the officers whose remarks were recorded, the issue remains whether discipline follows the complaint and the recordings that brought the case into public view.
