THE POLICE PROBLEM

They don't even have to do that themselves, they can just delay responding when he calls for backup.

Loads fine without JavaScript. Just use a secure or text browser

Wow, that's IMPRESSIVELY awful! 😮🤬

Prosecutors charge that LAPD officer Daniel Flores violated the California Invasion of Privacy Act, which prohibits recording others without their consent. Flores filed an internal affairs complaint against his LAPD colleagues after recording them making racist, homophobic and sexist comments. Flores’ lawyer said the case sends a message that “if you document bigotry inside the LAPD, you will be the one who ends up in a courtroom.” Los Angeles County prosecutors on Friday charged an LAPD officer with felony eavesdropping for making secret recordings of his colleagues’ racist, sexist and homophobic comments on the job.

The officer, Daniel Flores, was charged with 16 felony counts of eavesdropping on or recording confidential communications — crimes that carry a sentence of up to 13 years in prison, if convicted.

In a statement announcing the charges, L.A. Dist. Atty. Nathan Hochman said that while he found the recorded comments deplorable, Flores still violated the California Invasion of Privacy Act, which prohibits recording others without their consent.

“This case serves as a warning to anyone seeking to record a conversation without the other person’s permission that doing so is illegal and has been a crime in the state of California for over 50 years,” the statement read. “It doesn’t matter where you work or who you are - a neighbor, a coworker or, in this case, a police officer. Your right to privacy in a confidential conversation is protected, no matter who is doing the recording or, with few exceptions, why they are doing the recording.”

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 within 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 couldn’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 nonpublic 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.

They're not always recording. There's been a lot of cops who got in trouble for turning theirs off.

Right? How can you have an expectation of privacy when you are wearing a recording device all fucking day?

Notable that these recordings would have occurred in public.

Don't they have body cameras. They should have no expectation of privacy if they do.

All party consent state.

It's only 99% of them that make the rest look bad

Yes, fixing LAPD is maybe impossible task, I wish the city would try to create a new police department, start from scratch and disband LAPD once there is some momentum. I don't think LAPD is even doing anything useful at this point.

For example, there was (I think) law that police can't stop driver if the only issue is expired license plate registration sticker. They did malicious compliance and I now see cars without license plates (mostly driven by rich fucks) which is very different thing.

Oh no! The one good apple

Tbf here was a good cop

So they pushed him out... :(

I don't know how well that would work. The worst of these fucks seem to act with some sort of freakish resistance to acknowledging the natural world.

I don't mean that in some green washy climate related way (though that would have been nice, oh, 60 years ago), I mean they literally seem to resist acknowledging the actual physical state of reality as put before them.

I used to be a full blown atheist, but goddamn if I'm not starting to wonder if the Gnostics aren't on to something.