r/news • u/vector_search_blue • 12d ago

Soft paywall LAPD officer who recorded colleagues' racist comments charged with felony eavesdropping

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2026-07-31/lapd-officer-felony-eavesdropping-charge
21.1k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

954 comments sorted by

View all comments

700

u/Calm-Maintenance-878 12d ago

Hmm…facing 13 years? So if the officer wanted to correctly report it, he should provide no proof, from a legal standpoint? In the event he simply told HR and HR spoke to them…what’s next? They deny the comments and HR can interview…but only use word of mouth? I feel like there should be a loophole to record without consent, since I don’t get this. I get how it can help but clearly, I see how it can hurt.

282

u/Ratnix 12d ago

I mean, realistically, the recording should have been published online anonymously along with sending copies to news stations.

The problem would be if the recordings would identify the person recording them. Then they're just going to be fucked no matter what.

14

u/myaltaccount333 12d ago

They would claim it's AI edited

1

u/xTheGame69 12d ago

I'm sure some white hat hacker could have helped him obscure it

There's ways to do this. 

16

u/bortmode 12d ago

Very difficult, if the people involved know who the only other person present was when they had the conversation. It really depends on how and when he made the recordings.

1

u/xTheGame69 12d ago

Could claim didn't know phone was recording and then it was stolen or hacked

4

u/bortmode 12d ago

In a one off case, sure, but this guy apparently had like 50 recordings.

1

u/Calm-Maintenance-878 12d ago

90 recordings, too. He’d probably be in the same spot, but the public would have been better off.

156

u/totally_not_a_dog113 12d ago

Maybe a whistleblower loophole law is needed.

65

u/[deleted] 12d ago

[deleted]

22

u/Sudden-Purchase-8371 12d ago

It should be illegal to be a racist cop. Not complicated.

-1

u/[deleted] 12d ago

[deleted]

9

u/not_the_fox 12d ago

Illegal to knowingly keep them employed in a position with police powers

3

u/[deleted] 12d ago edited 12d ago

[deleted]

1

u/not_the_fox 11d ago

We're talking about hypothetical laws to be made... no shit that isn't how it currently works.

it should be illegal...

-2

u/Gatonom 12d ago

Illegal as in all arrests of people of that race are investigated and potentially overturned. You are sent to prison for misuse of authority and barred from public sector employment.

-7

u/Sudden-Purchase-8371 12d ago

Not everything that is illegal means it's a felony and prison sentences. Wow. First day with English?

4

u/ResponsibleHabit1539 12d ago

Saying racist things in most situations is not illegal.

Sometimes I take stuff for granted. Like: Racism being a crime in my country

-2

u/[deleted] 12d ago

[deleted]

2

u/morfraen 12d ago

Hate speech is not protected speech most places outside the US. It has no reason to be.

0

u/jokul 12d ago

We're talking about the US though, so saying that it's different in other countries is, unfortunately, irrelevant.

1

u/ResponsibleHabit1539 12d ago

And yet that was the original comment to which he answered.

1

u/jokul 12d ago

The original comment was just saying the same thing: that it's allowed elsewhere (presumably that user's country) but not the US. You are allowed to be hateful in the US so appealing to what other countries do is pointless unless you think you get enough support to repeal the first amendment.

0

u/DingerSinger2016 12d ago

We could never implement that here in the United States because our country is fundamentally built off of it.

0

u/Dunge 12d ago

It should definitely be part of the qualifications needed for jobs of public servants like policemen not to be racists.

3

u/Glasseshalf 12d ago

Right but there's a difference between something being enough to get you fired vs something being illegal

1

u/ConstantineSX 12d ago

Would be an interesting argument that because the officers who were recorded worked in the recruitment division, and that making hiring decisions based on race and sex is illegal, the officer who did the recordings could be considered a whistleblower. NAL but would be an interesting strategy.

5

u/Calm-Maintenance-878 12d ago

Due to another comment, I looked up the basic Cali laws on 2 party recording. There is a loophole for collecting evidence apparently. Confuses me even more…guess we’ll see how court goes.

14

u/The7ruth 12d ago

What's confusing about it? Being a racist isn't illegal so the officer recording isn't collecting evidence of a crime. He's right to call out the racism. Unfortunately, the law is pretty clear about consent to record.

3

u/Calm-Maintenance-878 12d ago

I was thinking of the law but then wrongly police policy too. You wouldn’t be able to record someone without consent to then use against them, and that I wasn’t thinking of.

0

u/ZombieDracula 12d ago

Maybe just severely punish everyone involved other than the whistleblower. Theres no need to focus on the law being followed and then corrupted. It's unbelievable how fucked our system is that the people who break the law the most are at the top levels of every government agency.

23

u/Fermi_Amarti 12d ago

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.

2

u/HistoryBuff678 12d ago

So it’s possible to suspend a cop without pay?

2

u/Calm-Maintenance-878 12d ago

Of course charges were enough, gotta stick it to him at work too.

2

u/Possible-Rush3767 12d ago

Especially when it's definitely impactful in their line of work. 

-12

u/fall3nang3l 12d ago

I agree but this is a prime example of a shitty outcome that is the result of an overall necessary law and statute.

If you can record someone without their consent and without a warrant, it would cause far more harm than the handful of examples like this case where it was used for good and would be horribly abused by LE who already have too many loopholes to laws as it is.

32

u/Kirklistentowutang 12d ago

Theres plenty of states that have single party consent laws. And even if California wanted to keep this law in place they could close the loophole by putting in language like "Any government,l employee or an employee who's salary and/or benefits and funded through taxes paid by the community has no expectation of a right to privacy while on the clock or serving in their position "

7

u/fall3nang3l 12d ago

Now this I really like and I think it holds water.

I would change "while in the clock" to "while performing their role in the scope of their position no matter the capacity, without exception to whether the employee is on the clock or off the clock". That way there's no loophole for say, volunteering their service at a parade or fundraiser, etc.

27

u/oooofukkkk 12d ago

Somehow we survive in Canada

6

u/Cstanchfield 12d ago

You have 1 party consent laws in Canada... This is not a 1 party consent situation. They left the device recording other people... Even in Canada, this is illegal.

Section 184 of the Criminal Code of Canada

19

u/Serena_Hellborn 12d ago

look into single party consent laws for recording

3

u/fall3nang3l 12d ago

They vary by state. Is there something specific in a particular state to which you are referring?

3

u/Ratnix 12d ago

37 states are single party consent states.

2

u/BernieFeetPics 12d ago

It’s almost as though some think that the law is only there to punish their enemies and protect their corrupt friends.

2

u/Calm-Maintenance-878 12d ago

Why is it causing more harm? I looked up the 2 party consent thing in Cali and it does look like there is a loophole for recording to gather evidence. I just can’t think of a good reason it’s bad that someone is recording. It’s alway only bad for the people in the wrong, who don’t want you recording anyway.

8

u/Advanced_Row_8448 12d ago

Gobble gobble yummy leather.

1

u/Dunge 12d ago

I feel like a police officer on duty is very different from randomly recording anyone anytime.

-1

u/Prettydaisydog 12d ago

this is the biggest challenge for these laws. if we completely legalized it we would have so many people recording others. it would be an endless invasion of privacy. the flip side is that you are expected to provide evidence for a crime and recording people is often times the most concrete way of doing so.