A 19-year-old San Diego man has filed a legal claim alleging a San Diego police officer shot him while he was riding to work in a car after an automated license plate reader alert identified the car as stolen, though the vehicle owner says it was not.
In an Aug. 24, 2026 tort claim, a precursor to a lawsuit, Jorge Luis Soto says San Diego Police Officer Ricardo Zambrano violated department policy by firing into the car and violated his civil rights by shooting him without cause.
According to San Diego Police video of the shooting, Officer Zambrano was responding to an alert from an automated license plate reader that he received less than five minutes before the shooting.
The problem, according to separate tort claims filed by Soto and vehicle owner Travis Nelson, the Honda was not stolen and was being driven with Nelson’s permission.
The two tort claims, obtained through a public records request, come less than a week after a San Diego City Council committee signaled their willingness to end the city’s contract with ALPR company, Flock Safety.
The Shooting
At 7:04 a.m., a surveillance camera at the Villa Nueva apartment complex on Beyer Boulevard captured video of a silver Honda Accord, driven by Angel Valencia with his coworker Soto in the passenger seat, making a U-turn to head outside the complex. The men, according to the claim, were in their boss’ car and were on their way to work at a local moving company.
As Valencia arrived at his coworker’s apartment, the San Diego Police Department’s automated license plate reader log alerted the department of a stolen vehicle at 7:01 a.m. A separate data set shows a stolen vehicle call logged at the same time, tagged “1080-LPR,” at the 1500 block of Smythe Avenue, nearly half a mile from the apartment complex at 3500 Beyer Blvd.
San Diego Police Department spokesperson Ashley Nicholes told Times of San Diego that the stolen vehicle call originated from the FBI’s National Crime Information Center.
“The Department’s ALPR system automatically receives stolen-vehicle information from [the National Crime Information Center] through regularly updated hotlists,” stated Nicholes.
Since implementing automated license plate readers, San Diego Police has touted the effectiveness of the surveillance tool in tracking down stolen vehicles.
Data the Times of San Diego obtained and analyzed reveals SDPD ran 19,210 license plate reader searches for stolen vehicles between Jan. 1, 2026 and Aug. 1, 2026.
In a separate legal claim, also obtained through a public records request, Valencia and Soto’s boss, Travis Nelson, said he had not reported the car as stolen and it was in “lawful possession” of Valencia.
Surveillance video later released by San Diego Police shows Valencia driving the Honda Accord toward the exit as Officer Zambrano turns into the complex. As Valencia drove down the complex drive, surveillance video shows a pedestrian walking on a sidewalk next to the Honda Accord.
Video shows the Honda Accord’s brake lights flash momentarily as it goes over a speed bump. Valencia continues toward the exit, traveling at nearly the same pace as the pedestrian next to the car.
According to police video, at 7:05:50 a.m., the cruiser’s lights turn on, and Officer Zambrano opens the car door. Valencia continued to drive toward the exit.
“[Soto] saw an SDPD patrol vehicle turn into the driveway and approach the Honda head-on,” states the legal claim. “[Soto] immediately told [Valencia] to put his hands up, and both men raised their hands.”
Six seconds later, Officer Zambrano fired a single shot toward the passenger window. Video shows the Honda Accord’s front windshield crater, splintering from the bullet. Officer Zambrano did not have his body camera activated at the time of the shooting.
“The officer exited his vehicle, gave no verbal commands, and immediately fired one round from his firearm,” states Soto’s legal claim.
The bullet went through Soto’s left shoulder.
Soto’s mother, who was driving home from her overnight job with her two other sons in the car, arrived just before the shooting and watched the events unfold.
“[Ileana] Soto then saw the Honda, with [Valencia] in the driver’s seat and [Soto] in the front passenger seat, both with their hands raised,” stated Soto’s legal claim. “[Ileana] saw and heard the SDPD officer fire his weapon. After the shot, she heard Jorge yelling that he did not want to die and calling out for her.”
According to the claim, after questioning, Soto was taken to the hospital where he was treated for a gunshot wound to his left shoulder.
Soto’s claim says he was handcuffed to the hospital bed for 10 hours after the ordeal.
“[Soto] asked SDPD officers multiple times why he had been shot and received no answer, though at one point, with two officers in the room, one told him, ‘mistakes happen,’” reads the legal claim.
Soto was released later that day and says he has trouble sleeping, panic attacks when seeing police officers, and suffers from shoulder pain.
Neither Soto nor Valencia were arrested or charged with any crime.
In his legal claim, Valencia and Soto’s boss, Travis Nelson, is seeking the return of his vehicle and compensation for the damage.
“The City is responsible because the damage to my vehicle resulted directly from gunfire discharged by San Diego Police Department officers during the incident,” states Nelson’s claim.”The vehicle was lawfully in another individual’s possession with my permission. In addition to the physical damage and biological contamination resulting from the shooting, SDPD’s continued retention of the vehicle prevents me from inspecting, repairing, remediating, using, or fully evaluating my property.”
Neither Soto’s lawyers nor Nelson would comment for this article.
San Diego Police spokesperson Nicholes said the department could not discuss specifics due to it being an active investigation. “Due to the open investigation into the officer-Involved Shooting and litigation, [San Diego Police] is limited in what we can provide on this incident. The Department can confirm that, at the time of the incident, the vehicle the officer stopped was entered as stolen by another agency in the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) system.”
While the incident is still under active investigation, the police department’s use of force policy clearly outlines the department’s approach to shooting moving vehicles: “Firearms are generally ineffective in stopping moving vehicles.”
Officers are not allowed to discharge a firearm unless the officer has probable cause to believe the driver or vehicle poses an immediate threat of death or serious physical harm to the officer or other people. The officer must have no reasonable alternative to avoid harm.
