LAPD Officers Fired For Chasing Snorlax in Pokemon Go Instead of Robbers

Two Los Angeles police officers were fired after they chose to chase a Snorlax in Pokemon GO instead of helping stop a robbery in progress at a local mall.

As reported by Vice and detailed in court documents, former LAPD officers Louis Lozano and Eric Mitchell were on foot beat patrol on April 15, 2017, when a robbery at the Macy's at Crenshaw Mall was taking place. Calls began going out to police in the vicinity to respond and some, like a unit that was at a homicide crime scene, rushed over to the mall.

Lozano and Mitchell, on the other hand, ignored the call at first and then responded with a simple, "no," when asked again. As it turns out, they "willfully failed to respond to the robbery call and attempted to conceal the fact" by saying they were somewhere other than where they actually were.

After listening to the recording in Lozano and Mitchell's police car, the LAPD also discovered they were playing Pokemon GO on the day of the robbery.

"The recording showed that, at approximately 6:09 p.m. (just five minutes after Officer Lozano said “screw it” to checking in with communications about the robbery call), Officer Mitchell alerted Lozano that 'Snorlax' 'just popped up' at '46th and Leimert,'" the court documents read. "After noting that 'Leimert doesn’t go all the way to 46th,' Lozano responded, 'Oh, you [know] what I can do? I’ll [go] down 11th and swing up on Crenshaw. I know that way I can get to it.' Mitchell suggested a different route, then told Lozano, 'We got four minutes.'

"For approximately the next 20 minutes, the DICVS captured petitioners discussing Pokémon as they drove to different locations where the virtual creatures apparently appeared on their mobile phones. On their way to the Snorlax location, Officer Mitchell alerted Officer Lozano that 'a Togetic just popped up,' noting it was '[o]n Crenshaw, just South of 50th.' After Mitchell apparently caught the Snorlax — exclaiming, 'Got ‘em'—petitioners agreed to '[g]o get the Togetic' and drove off."

After successfully catching the Togetic after Lozano "buried it and ultra-balled" it, they decided to return to a 7-Eleven to end their watch. Later, they would lie about playing the game and even said they were "merely having a conversation about Pokemon GO" and that they were "capturing [an] image" of the Pokemon on a tracking app.

They were charged with multiple counts of on-duty misconduct and fired and would later try to appeal their case by saying they weren't aware their conversations were being recorded and that their words should be considered "private." On January 7, 2022, the court denied the appeal.

While this event may have taken place in 2017, 2022 will soon see the release of Pokemon Legends: Arceus – a new game in the beloved franchise that may offer yet another chance for someone to get in trouble for playing it when they really shouldn't.

For more on Snorlax, check out how this sleepy Pokemon's origins are actually inspired by a real person – the veteran Pokémon game designer Kōji Nishino.

Have a tip for us? Want to discuss a possible story? Please send an email to

Adam Bankhurst is a news writer for IGN. You can follow him on Twitter @AdamBankhurst and on Twitch.


About  A leading news channel for all things eSports and gaming. Publishing the most relevant breaking news for esports and gaming including coverage of industry trends and guides on the business of eSports and gaming for investors and aspiring eSports and gaming professionals. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Appsoft Technologies, Inc. (OTC:ASFT) a publicly traded development stage company aspiring to be a leading contender in the esports, gaming and mobile apps industry.

Appsoft Technologies, Inc.

Safe Harbor Statement

This communication may include certain statements that are not descriptions of historical facts but are forward looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. These forward-looking statements may include the description of our plans and objectives for future operations, assumptions underlying such plans and objectives, and other forward-looking terminology such as “may,” “expects,” “believes,” “anticipates,” “intends,” “projects,” or similar terms, variations of such terms or the negative of such terms. There are a number of risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from the forward-looking statements made herein. Such information is based upon various assumptions made by, and expectations of, our management that were reasonable when made but may prove to be incorrect. All of such  assumptions are inherently subject to significant economic and competitive uncertainties and contingencies beyond our control and upon assumptions with respect to the future business decisions which are subject to change. Accordingly, there can be no assurance that actual results will meet expectation and actual results may vary (perhaps materially) from certain of the results anticipated herein.

Other Articles

Leave a Reply