LAPD Officer Charged With 16 Felony Counts Under CIPA

LAPD Officer Charged With 16 Felony Counts for Secretly Recording Colleagues

Los Angeles County prosecutors charged LAPD Officer Daniel Flores on July 31, 2026, with 16 felony counts of illegal eavesdropping under California Penal Code section 632 for secretly recording colleagues in 2024. He faces up to 13 years in prison if convicted on all counts.

Information last verified on August 3, 2026. This is a developing story; we update it as the record changes.

Jurisdiction scope: This article covers California law only, specifically Penal Code section 632's all-party consent requirement for confidential communications. Recording laws vary by state; consult the applicable statute for any other jurisdiction.

What Happened

The Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office announced on July 31, 2026, that it had filed 16 felony counts against LAPD Officer Daniel Flores for eavesdropping on or recording confidential communications in violation of California Penal Code section 632. Prosecutors allege that during 2024, Flores secretly recorded colleagues assigned to LAPD's background-investigations unit, the group responsible for vetting candidates for hire, without telling them he was recording.

According to the DA's office and multiple local outlets, Flores turned over roughly 90 recordings to LAPD's Internal Affairs division, asserting that some of the conversations captured coworkers making racist, sexist and homophobic remarks about job candidates and colleagues. Flores also filed a civil hostile-workplace lawsuit in June 2026, in which he characterized the recordings as part of what he called a lawful investigation into departmental misconduct.

Prosecutors reject that framing as a legal defense. Announcing the charges, DA Nathan Hochman said the county would not excuse secret recording simply because the recorder believed the cause was just: "in our all-party consent state, where California has been one of the nation's leaders in protecting privacy and deterring illegal eavesdropping for over half a century, one cannot simply choose to break the law because one wants to pursue a personal agenda." Hochman added that "the options are not break the law or do nothing," pointing to internal grievance and legal channels as the lawful alternative to secret recording.

Flores's defense attorney, Alan Jackson, has pushed back publicly, arguing the case punishes his client rather than the coworkers he recorded, and has said Flores intends to plead not guilty. Flores is scheduled to be arraigned on August 10, 2026, in Department 30 of the Foltz Criminal Justice Center. If convicted on all 16 counts, he faces a maximum of approximately 13 years in state prison. These are allegations only; Flores, like any defendant, is presumed innocent unless and until the prosecution proves its case.

What the Law Actually Says

California Penal Code section 632(a) makes it a crime to intentionally record or eavesdrop on a "confidential communication" using an electronic recording or amplifying device without the consent of every party to that communication. California is one of a minority of states that requires all-party consent (sometimes called two-party consent) rather than the one-party consent standard used federally and in most states. Our California recording laws overview walks through how that all-party rule applies across settings in the state.

The statute defines a "confidential communication" as one made in circumstances where a party reasonably expects that no one is recording or listening in without permission, excluding conversations made in a public gathering or any other setting where the parties should reasonably expect the conversation may be overheard. That threshold question, whether the setting genuinely carried a reasonable expectation of privacy, is often the central factual dispute in section 632 cases, since a workplace conversation can go either way depending on the circumstances. Our page on California workplace recording rules covers how the confidentiality analysis plays out on the job, and our guide to California rules for phone calls covers the same all-party requirement for recorded calls.

Under the statute, a first violation of section 632 carries a fine of up to $2,500 per violation, imprisonment in county jail of up to one year, imprisonment in state prison, or both a fine and imprisonment; a defendant with a prior conviction under section 632 or related eavesdropping statutes faces an enhanced fine of up to $10,000 per violation. Because Flores faces 16 separate counts, the total potential exposure prosecutors cite (up to roughly 13 years) reflects the accumulation of multiple counts rather than the penalty for any single violation. Notably, section 632 does not include an exception for a recorder's motive, whether that motive is documenting misconduct, whistleblowing, or something else; the statute's consent requirement applies regardless of why the recording was made.

Analysis: Why This Matters

The following is analysis from the Recording Law Editorial Team. This case is a clean illustration of a distinction that recurs across California eavesdropping prosecutions: section 632 regulates the act of secretly recording a confidential communication, not the content of what gets said or the recorder's reason for capturing it. A recording that documents genuinely offensive workplace conduct does not, under the statute as written, become lawful because of what it reveals. That is a deliberate design choice in California's privacy law, not an oversight, and it means the legal question in this case (whether Flores recorded confidential communications without consent) is analytically separate from the underlying workplace conduct he says the recordings show.

That separation is also why this case has generated public debate beyond the courtroom. The DA's office and Flores's defense are, in effect, arguing about which harm the law should weigh more heavily, unauthorized secret recording or the misconduct a recording might expose, and Penal Code section 632 answers that question by treating the recording itself as the offense, with narrow statutory exceptions that do not include internal whistleblowing. Whether Flores's specific recordings fall within any statutory exception, whether the communications were truly confidential under the circumstances, and how a jury or judge would ultimately weigh the case are all open questions that this filing does not resolve. We are not predicting an outcome here, and readers should not treat the charges themselves as proof of guilt.

How This Affects You

This case does not change California law; it illustrates how existing law is already applied. Anyone in California who is considering recording a conversation, at work, at home, or elsewhere, should understand that Penal Code section 632's all-party consent requirement applies broadly and does not carve out an exception for good intentions, workplace investigations, or documenting suspected misconduct. Employees who believe they are witnessing discriminatory or unlawful conduct at work generally have other avenues available, including internal HR or Equal Employment Opportunity complaints, union grievance procedures, state agencies such as California's Civil Rights Department, or consulting an employment attorney, none of which carry the criminal exposure that secret recording can. This article describes general legal principles only; it is not guidance on how to handle any individual's specific workplace situation.

This is general legal information, not legal advice. It covers California law as of August 3, 2026, and describes a developing criminal case in which the defendant has been charged but not convicted. Facts may change as the case proceeds. Consult a lawyer licensed in your jurisdiction for advice about your specific situation.

Related articles

• California's all-party consent recording law, explained
• How California's recording consent rules apply in the workplace
• California rules for recording phone calls
• A related CIPA case: California's vexatious-litigant crackdown
• Another recent CIPA dispute: the Otter.ai notetaker class action

Last updated: 2026-08-03. This is a developing story; details verified as of 2026-08-03.