Nicholas Hoskins Lawsuit: Traffic Stop and $25,000 Settlement

Nicholas Hoskins’ lawsuit against the City of San Diego settled for $25,000 in late 2025, ending a federal civil rights case he filed after a San Diego police officer smashed his passenger-side window during a May 2024 traffic stop. The city admitted no liability. A federal judge had earlier allowed most of Hoskins’ Fourth Amendment, Bane Act, and negligence claims to move forward before the parties resolved the case.

What Happened During the May 2024 Traffic Stop

On May 9, 2024, around 4:00 p.m. in San Diego’s Southcrest neighborhood, SDPD officers stopped Hoskins near the I-805 north ramp. Officers said he had failed to make a complete stop at a stop sign. Hoskins disputed that. Two patrol cars pulled in behind him and two in front.¹

After checking his license and registration, officers asked whether he had anything in the car and told him to unbuckle his seatbelt and step out so they could search it. Hoskins refused. He repeatedly asked what the probable cause for a search was, told officers he was not on probation or parole, said he had no weapons, and explained he was on his way to pick up his son. He asked for a supervisor.²

Before a supervisor arrived, according to the complaint, one officer struck the front passenger-side window at least ten times, shattering it and spraying glass over Hoskins. Video Hoskins recorded shows the officer saying, “OK, I’m breaking your window,” before the strike. Officers then pulled him out, handcuffed him, and searched his backpack, car, and trunk without a warrant. He was taken to San Diego Central Jail and given a notice to appear on a misdemeanor charge of resisting arrest under California Penal Code section 148.¹ Prosecutors never pursued that charge.² Hoskins said the incident cost him roughly $1,000 in impound fees and window repairs.³

What the Lawsuit Claimed

Hoskins filed suit on August 21, 2024, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, case number 3:24-cv-01488. He was represented by Timothy A. Scott and Michelle C. Angeles of McKenzie Scott PC. The defendants were the City of San Diego and four unnamed SDPD officers; the complaint identified one as likely Officer Braden Wilson, badge 7497.¹

The complaint raised three sets of claims:

A Fourth Amendment claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for unreasonable search and seizure, excessive force, and fabrication of evidence.
A claim under the Bane Act, California Civil Code § 52.1, alleging officers interfered with his constitutional rights through threats, intimidation, or coercion.
A negligence claim alleging officers breached their duty of reasonable care during the stop, search, and arrest.

Hoskins sought compensatory and punitive damages, attorney fees, and other relief. The complaint also described three earlier SDPD stops of Hoskins in the year after his release from prison, framing the May 2024 encounter as part of a pattern.⁴

How the Court Ruled Before Settlement

The city, represented by Deputy City Attorney Stacy Plotkin-Wolff, moved to dismiss on October 4, 2024, and separately moved to strike the allegations about Hoskins’ prior stops as irrelevant.⁵

On July 17, 2025, U.S. District Judge Anthony Battaglia granted the motion in part and denied it in part. Most of Hoskins’ case survived. The court allowed the Fourth Amendment claims for unreasonable search and seizure, excessive force, and fabrication of evidence to proceed, along with the Bane Act claims tied to those theories and the negligence claim. Judge Battaglia wrote that Hoskins had made “sufficient factual allegations” and noted that “a seizure conducted without a warrant is per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment.” On the fabrication claim, the judge pointed to allegations that officers “wrote reports themselves or helped one another write reports that they knew contained fabrications.”⁶

The court dismissed the due process and equal protection theories brought under the Bane Act, finding the way they were pleaded “internally confusing,” but gave Hoskins leave to refile them. The judge also refused to strike the allegations about the earlier stops, ruling they were relevant to Hoskins’ emotional distress claims.⁷

The $25,000 Settlement

Hoskins filed a First Amended Complaint on September 18, 2025. Eleven days later, at a September 29 case management conference, the parties reported a conditional settlement.⁵

Under the deal, the City of San Diego paid Hoskins $25,000. The city admitted no responsibility or liability, and each side agreed to bear its own attorney fees. Because the payout was under $50,000, Mayor Todd Gloria authorized it without a City Council vote.⁴ The parties filed a joint motion to dismiss on November 12, 2025, and Judge Battaglia granted it the next day, closing the case.⁵

Why Hoskins Was Recording Police

Hoskins said he began recording every police interaction after his release from prison to make sure officers were “held responsible.”⁴ He had spent eight years incarcerated on a conspiracy to commit murder conviction from a 2014 case, People v. Ware, brought by the San Diego County District Attorney’s Office. Prosecutors’ evidence against him consisted largely of his Facebook and Instagram posts; there was no direct evidence he committed or participated in any act of violence. He was sentenced to 25 years to life.

On December 1, 2022, the California Supreme Court unanimously reversed his conviction in an opinion by Justice Leondra Kruger, holding that the prosecution had not proven the specific intent needed to establish participation in a conspiracy and that “no reasonable jury could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that Hoskins had the requisite intent to participate in a conspiracy to commit murder.”⁸ The District Attorney did not refile charges, and Hoskins was released in February 2023.⁶

In roughly the next 14 months, SDPD stopped him four times. Around April 2023, officers stopped a car he was riding in after work in East Village and handcuffed and searched his cousin, who was on parole; Hoskins was released without charges. Weeks later, officers pulled him over for a taped-up tail light. He refused a vehicle search and was released without a citation. In March 2024, officers stopped him for window tint they said was “too dark,” did not ticket him, and asked about his residence, employment, plans, phone number, and Social Security number, and about a speaker in his back seat. The May 2024 stop was the fourth. None of the first three produced a charge or citation.³

Internal Affairs Review

SDPD confirmed in June 2024 that the May traffic stop was under internal affairs review.³ No public findings or disciplinary outcome from that investigation have been reported. The officer identified in the complaint as likely responsible for breaking the window, Braden Wilson, was not named individually in the settlement, and the city’s payment carried no admission of wrongdoing by any officer.

1
Courthouse News Service. Hoskins v. City of San Diego, Complaint for Damages
2
NBC San Diego. City of San Diego Settles Lawsuit With Driver Over SDPD Traffic Stop
3
NBC San Diego. San Diego Police Traffic Stop Race Disparity
4
San Diego Union-Tribune. San Diego Settles Lawsuit With Man Who Recorded Officer Smashing Car Window
5
CourtListener. Hoskins v. City of San Diego, Docket
6
Courthouse News Service. San Diego Can’t Duck Claims Police Still Target Man Years After Exoneration
7
GovInfo. Hoskins v. City of San Diego, Order on Motions to Dismiss
8
Findlaw. People v. Ware, 14 Cal.5th 1051