Los Angeles County District Attorney Nathan Hochman announced Wednesday that 16 felony eavesdropping charges against LAPD Officer Daniel Flores would be reduced to misdemeanors, allowing Flores to enter a diversion agreement and avoid jail time if he complies with court-ordered terms for one year.
The decision follows public criticism of Hochman’s initial prosecution of Flores, who recorded colleagues in the LAPD’s recruitment division making racist, sexist, and homophobic remarks last year. The recordings were submitted to LAPD Internal Affairs in early 2025 and first reported by the Los Angeles Times.
Key Details of the Resolution
Under the diversion agreement, Flores will avoid prosecution if he adheres to conditions set by the court over the next year. The case will be dismissed upon successful completion. Hochman acknowledged that the original felony charges sent a “wrong message” to potential whistleblowers, stating that the public reaction indicated the prosecution could deter officers from exposing misconduct within the department.
Flores’ attorney, Alan Jackson, previously argued that prosecuting Flores for documenting racism would discourage others from reporting wrongdoing. Hochman emphasized that while the recorded remarks amounted to “hate speech,” the eavesdropping statute under which Flores was charged did not account for the intent behind the recordings.
Context: The Recordings and Public Reaction
The recordings, made in late 2024, captured officers in the LAPD’s recruitment division making explicitly derogatory comments, including:
- Jokes about a Latino Dodgers pitcher dying after “eating too many tacos.”
- Stereotypes about Black individuals and watermelon or basketball.
- A remark referring to a young recruit as “rapeable.”
The existence of the tapes was first disclosed by the Los Angeles Times in early 2025. Hochman filed the felony charges in July 2025, citing California’s eavesdropping law, which requires consent from all parties for legal recordings. The original charges carried a maximum sentence of 13 years in prison.
The prosecution sparked backlash from multiple quarters, including Mayor Karen Bass and some of Hochman’s own prosecutors, who called the charges “insane” and warned they could undermine efforts to combat police misconduct. Hochman later stated his office was “listening to the impact” the case had on whistleblowers and adjusted the charges accordingly.
Legal and Policy Implications
The case raises questions about whistleblower protections for law enforcement officers who document misconduct. Critics argue that prosecuting Flores under an anti-eavesdropping law could chill internal accountability efforts, while supporters of the original charges contend that secret recordings violate privacy rights regardless of the content.
Hochman maintained that the decision to reduce the charges was not an endorsement of the recorded behavior but a recognition that the legal framework did not align with the intent behind Flores’ actions. The diversion agreement reflects a compromise between holding officers accountable for hate speech and protecting those who expose it.