A retired Los Angeles police officer secretly took about 20,000 intimate still photos and videos of his former wife, also an LAPD officer, and distributed them on the Internet while also showing hundreds to fellow police officers, according to the woman’s new court papers.
The plaintiff filed for divorce from the defendant — Brady Lamas, who is in his 40s — in February 2022. Lamas pleaded no contest in February 2024 to a misdemeanor charge of distributing a private image to cause emotional distress and was ordered the next month under the terms of his sentencing to pay restitution, attend a year of sexual compulsive anonymous meetings, perform community labor and stay away from the plaintiff.
Prosecutors said Lamas shared the images with other people, including the other LAPD officers, between December 2021 and January 2022. His wife’s Los Angeles Superior Court lawsuit was filed in December 2023 and alleges sexual harassment, retaliation and failure to prevent harassment and retaliation. Trial is scheduled Oct. 5.
On Wednesday, the City Attorney’s Office filed court papers with Judge Virginia Keeny asking her to exclude original or replica shots of the some 20,000 intimate photos of the plaintiff, saying “any probative value of these images is substantially outweighed by the risk of undue prejudice, confusion of issues and are likely to mislead the jury.”
The plaintiff says that in January 2022 she discovered the existence of some of the images on her husband’s personal cell phone and that he had distributed them, prompting her to file reports with the LAPD and the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Dept.
But the City Attorney’s Office contends the plaintiff cannot authenticate that the texts and images were sent from Lamas’ cell phone and that the individuals who appear to be named as recipients actually received the texts and images from her husband.
If the plaintiff is permitted to introduce some or all of the photographs, videos and related text messages at trial, she must first produce the images in unredacted form so that the City can determine whether the plaintiff is indeed the subject of the photograph or video and whether plaintiff was aware the photograph or video was being taken, according to the City Attorney’s Office’s court papers.
Lamas was placed on immediate leave, demoted and ultimately recommended for termination, but he retired before the termination process started, according to the City Attorney’s Office’s pleadings. The four officers shown the photos were suspended, but none distributed the images, according to the City Attorney’s Office’s court papers, which further state that none of the four officers socialized together — on or off duty — or were aware the others received images from Lamas.
The plaintiff, who is still an LAPD officer, received numerous commendations and awards over the span of her multi-year career with the LAPD, but on Jan. 30, 2022, she “was horrified when she looked through her husband’s phone” and “discovered that her husband, also a LAPD officer, had been passing around sexually explicit photographs and sexually explicit videos of plaintiff to other LAPD officers … for more than a year,” according to the complaint.
Some of the officers in a group text with her husband made sexually harassing comments toward the plaintiff over the course of the prior year and she now had context for statements she previously did not understand, the suit states.
The plaintiff reported the photos to the LAPD, was interviewed by the Internal Affairs Division and a criminal investigation ensued, the suit states.
However, two officers who had allegedly made sexually harassing remarks to her were not transferred as she hoped and the LAPD did nothing to ensure that any of the officers who it knew had obtained the images of her would cease disseminating the images, the suit contends.
The alleged sexual harassment rooted in the photo distribution continued into this year, the suit states. The plaintiff once more complained to management, which still failed to prevent the behavior, thereby encouraging a hostile work environment for the plaintiff, the suit states.
“The department simply did not care enough to do all that was necessary to protect plaintiff,” the suit states.
The plaintiff’s career has been “greatly damaged” and the ongoing harassment and retaliation will have a negative effect on her career advancements, according to the suit.
In their previous court papers, the City Attorney’s Office argued the plaintiff’s case should be dismissed. The office cites numerous defenses, including that the plaintiff’s claims violate the statute of limitations and that the LAPD had “legitimate business reasons” for their conduct regarding the woman.