LOS ANGELES, CA – Los Angeles County prosecutors have reduced felony eavesdropping charges against an LAPD officer accused of secretly recording coworkers making racist, sexist and homophobic remarks, eliminating the possibility that he could face a lengthy state prison sentence on the original counts.
Los Angeles County District Attorney Nathan Hochman announced Wednesday that 43-year-old Daniel Flores will instead face misdemeanor charges arising from recordings he allegedly made while assigned to an LAPD unit responsible for conducting background investigations on prospective department employees.
Flores had originally been charged July 31 with 16 felony counts of eavesdropping on or recording confidential communications.
The Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office said at the time that Flores allegedly recorded portions of conversations with fellow officers during 2024 without their knowledge or permission.
Some of those conversations allegedly contained racist, sexist and homophobic comments.
Flores pleaded not guilty to the felony charges earlier this month.
Had the original charges remained in place and resulted in convictions, prosecutors said he could have faced as much as 13 years in state prison.
That exposure has now been removed by the decision to pursue the allegations as misdemeanors instead.
Hochman said Wednesday that the change was intended to balance enforcement of California’s privacy laws with concerns that felony prosecution could discourage legitimate whistleblowers from reporting misconduct.
“This type of prosecution, because we used felony charges that could result in state prison, would actually chill legitimate whistleblowers who are potentially thinking of coming forward,” Hochman said.
He added that people who use lawful means to collect evidence of wrongdoing should not fear criminal prosecution.
The revised charging decision marks a significant change in the prosecution less than three weeks after the District Attorney’s Office publicly defended the original felony case.
California’s Penal Code Section 632 generally prohibits intentionally recording a confidential communication without the consent of all parties to the conversation.
The statute allows the offense to be punished as either a misdemeanor or felony under certain circumstances, which gave prosecutors discretion over how aggressively to charge the conduct alleged in Flores’ case.
The central allegation against Flores has not changed.
Prosecutors contend that he secretly recorded coworkers during 2024 while working in a unit involved in screening applicants seeking employment with the Los Angeles Police Department.
Earlier this month, prosecutors disclosed substantially more information about the recordings in a 26-page preliminary hearing brief.
According to that filing, Flores allegedly created 122 secret recordings involving fellow officers.
Prosecutors further alleged that he frequently initiated or participated in conversations before activating his recording device and that some recordings omitted his own earlier comments.
“The defendant intentionally manipulated conversations by initiating or participating in discussions about a particular topic before activating the recording device, then ceasing his own participation once the recording began,” prosecutors wrote in the filing.
The District Attorney’s Office has also alleged that Flores did not object to many of the offensive remarks at the time and, in some instances, participated in what prosecutors characterized as insensitive banter.
Those allegations are part of the prosecution’s argument that Flores was not acting solely as a whistleblower attempting to document misconduct.
Prosecutors have also alleged a financial motive.
According to the filing, several of Flores’ colleagues referenced what they allegedly called the “LAPD lottery,” a phrase prosecutors said referred to officers obtaining large financial settlements through lawsuits against the department.
Flores has filed a civil lawsuit against the city of Los Angeles seeking monetary damages.
Prosecutors alleged that he made comments about the department having “deep pockets” and expressed interest in making “easy money for no work.”
Those claims remain allegations and have not been established at trial.
Flores’ defense has characterized his actions differently and has argued that the recordings documented serious misconduct within the department.
The underlying comments allegedly captured on the recordings have themselves drawn scrutiny because they included statements described by authorities as racist, sexist and homophobic.
Hochman has repeatedly said his office considers those remarks unacceptable while maintaining that offensive speech does not automatically make an otherwise unlawful recording legal.
The case therefore presents two separate issues: the conduct allegedly captured in the recordings and the legality of the method Flores allegedly used to obtain them.
The California Invasion of Privacy Act establishes California’s protections against unauthorized interception and recording of confidential communications.
Under Section 632, a confidential communication generally means one conducted under circumstances in which at least one participant reasonably expects the conversation to remain private.
The law also contains exceptions, including circumstances involving certain law enforcement activity and recordings made to obtain evidence reasonably believed to relate to specified criminal conduct.
Whether any exception applies to Flores is among the legal issues that may be contested as the case moves forward.
The decision to reduce the charges also gives Flores the possibility of seeking misdemeanor diversion.
Under California Penal Code Section 1001.95, a Superior Court judge has discretion to offer diversion to a defendant facing an eligible misdemeanor, even over a prosecutor’s objection.
The law permits a judge to continue a case under diversion for as long as 24 months and impose appropriate conditions on the defendant.
If those conditions are successfully completed, the criminal case must be dismissed. If the defendant violates the terms, the court may terminate diversion and resume the prosecution.
That means diversion is not an automatic dismissal.
Flores would first need a judge to grant the request and would then have to comply with whatever conditions the court imposes.
The statute also requires defendants who receive diversion to complete court-ordered conditions and make restitution when applicable before a case can be dismissed.
The original investigation was conducted by the LAPD’s Internal Affairs Division, while the criminal case has been handled by the District Attorney’s Justice System Integrity Division.
The Justice System Integrity Division is responsible for reviewing allegations of criminal misconduct involving law enforcement personnel.
Hochman described Wednesday’s revised decision as a “hard middle approach,” saying prosecutors should remain willing to reevaluate charging decisions rather than treating them as irreversible.
The shift substantially reduces Flores’ potential criminal exposure but does not end the prosecution.
He still faces allegations that he unlawfully recorded confidential conversations without the consent of the other participants.
The misdemeanor charges also do not resolve Flores’ separate civil lawsuit against the city or determine whether disciplinary action will be taken against officers whose remarks were allegedly captured.
No finding of guilt has been made.
Flores is presumed innocent unless and until prosecutors prove the charges against him in court.
The case remains pending in Los Angeles County Superior Court.
