Los Angeles County prosecutors on Friday are expected to charge an LAPD officer with felony eavesdropping for making secret recordings of his colleagues’ racist, sexist and homophobic comments on the job.
According to an attorney for the officer, Daniel Flores, prosecutors will allege he violated the California Invasion of Privacy Act, which prohibits recording others without their consent. The crime can be prosecuted as a felony or misdemeanor.
A spokesperson for the district attorney’s office said they would release a statement about the charges Friday afternoon.
Flores turned over roughly 90 recordings to his superiors, according to an internal affairs complaint he filed with the department last year, which said he hoped the evidence would be used to discipline those responsible.
Flores’ attorney, Alan Jackson, blasted the decision by prosecutors to pursue charges.
“Today the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office charged a police officer with a crime for reporting racism inside the Los Angeles Police Department,” Jackson said. “Not the officers who were recorded using racial, sexist, and anti-gay slurs. Not the officers who sat in a government building and said those things while holding the power to decide who becomes an LAPD officer. The officer who reported them.”
Jackson said he intends to argue that Flores made the recordings in the scope of his duties as a police officer, investigating misconduct within the workplace.
The conversations were taped between March and October 2024 involving members of the department’s recruitment unit, whose officers are tasked with deciding who can join the police force.
After the Times revealed the recordings, their existence drew wide condemnation, including by LAPD Chief Jim McDonnell, Mayor Karen Bass and the police union, which called them “reprehensible” and “unacceptable” at a time when the department was struggling to attract recruits.
Jackson said the officer will fight the charge and plead not guilty, and that the law only applies where the speakers have a reasonable expectation that what they say would not be overheard or recorded.
Jackson said the anticipated charge against Flores sends a message 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.”
A separate administrative investigation of Flores by the LAPD found him guilty of policy violations and recommended a 22-day suspension without pay, according to Greg Smith, Flores’ civil attorney The discipline has not yet been finalized by the LAPD chief, Smith said.
Smith said it wasn’t clear whether any of the officers that Flores recorded have been punished. California law requires most police personnel investigations to be kept confidential.
In a retaliation lawsuit that Flores filed last month against the city, the officer claimed he overheard his supervisor, who was Asian, remark that an “Asian invasion” had begun, before starting to recruit officers of Asian descent to the unit. Other times, according to the lawsuit, the supervisors and unnamed colleagues made inappropriate comments about women, referring to them as “bitches” who can’t be trusted.
In another conversation described in the lawsuit, Flores said he heard his supervisor discuss the death of Dodgers legend Fernando Valenzuela from septic shock, allegedly telling subordinates that the Mexican pitcher “ate too many” tacos.
Flores alleged in the suit that the officers referred to other colleagues they believed to be queer with a slew of derogatory terms. They also referred to Black people as monkeys, the complaint said. “Black people like grape soda — they enjoy watermelon between basketball,” one was overheard saying, according to the lawsuit.
Susan Seager, a UC Irvine law professor who is not involved in the case, previously told The Times that Flores’ lawyer is correct in stating that the eavesdropping law bans secret taping of conversations only in situations in which there is a reasonable expectation that the communication would not be overheard or recorded.
She said there is no expectation of privacy in non-public settings, such as a locker room at an LAPD station house It’s less clear whether such protections extend to conversations at the office that revolve around work, she said.
Separately, police officers are also allowed to secretly record conversations if they are “acting within the scope of his or her authority,” according to Seager.
“Most courts say this exception only applies to taping for criminal investigations,” said Seager.
Richard Winton, Libor Jany
Source link