A federal immigration officer says San Diego police knocked him unconscious, arrested him on a fabricated felony charge, and orchestrated a department-wide cover-up, all to shield an off-duty sergeant who allegedly hurled a racial slur and body-slammed him in a Costco parking lot.

The allegations come in an amended federal lawsuit filed by Chu Ding, an off-duty Department of Homeland Security officer, against the City of San Diego, Sergeant Jonathan Ferraro, and several other officers. The suit, first reported by ABC 10News, paints a picture of a police department that treated its own officer as the victim and the actual victim as the criminal, despite witness calls, surveillance footage, and Ferraro's own repeated denials that Ding ever struck him.

San Diego police had not returned requests for comment as of Wednesday evening. The city had not filed a response to the amended complaint.

A parking dispute turns violent

The confrontation took place in 2024 at the Costco in Carmel Mountain Ranch. Surveillance video described in the lawsuit shows Ding trying to leave a parking spot while Ferraro's truck blocked his path. Ferraro was waiting for a nearby space.

Ding tapped on Ferraro's truck window. What happened next, the lawsuit alleges, was swift and brutal: Ferraro exited his vehicle, called Ding a "Chinese piece of s---," and slammed him to the ground, knocking him unconscious. Ferraro then flashed a badge and identified himself as a San Diego police sergeant.

Several bystanders called 911 to report Ferraro as the attacker. But the lawsuit alleges at least six 911 operators labeled Ding, the man on the ground, as the offender.

One operator went further. The call was upgraded to a Priority 0, the highest emergency classification, triggering a response of 14 officers, including a lieutenant, a sergeant, two detectives, and a department media relations spokesperson. For a parking-lot dispute at a Costco.

Body cameras off, apology letter on

The lawsuit's most damaging allegations center on what happened after officers arrived. Some responding officers turned off or muted their body-worn cameras when speaking to Ferraro, the filing states. Meanwhile, a 911 operator and her supervisor stayed on the line with Ferraro's wife, Jessica Ferraro, to provide what the lawsuit describes as "emotional support", even as other operators hung up on bystanders who called to complain about Ferraro or chastised callers for how they spoke to the sergeant.

"While hanging up on one of the callers who complained about Ferraro and chastising another caller for the way he was speaking to Ferraro, a 911 operator and her supervisor stayed on the call with Jessica Ferraro to provide emotional support."

Officers took Ding, who the lawsuit says had a fractured rib, not to a hospital but to the Northeastern substation. There, detectives placed him in an interrogation room and showed him grainy surveillance footage. They told him the video showed he had punched Ferraro.

The lawsuit says otherwise. It states that Ferraro himself "denied multiple times" that Ding punched him. And it adds a line that should concern anyone who believes in equal treatment under the law:

"Not a single witness saw Mr. Ding punch Ferraro."

Officers then coerced Ding into writing an apology letter to the man who had allegedly attacked him, the filing claims, all before taking him for medical care.

The 'public relations nightmare' the department feared

The amended lawsuit lays out what it calls the department's motive in plain terms. The filing alleges that San Diego police recognized early on that the real facts of the encounter would be devastating for the department's reputation.

"The news that an off-duty SDPD officer had screamed a racial epithet and body-slammed a federal officer, knocking him out, would be a public relations nightmare."

To get ahead of the problem, the lawsuit alleges, the department's media relations spokesperson responded to the scene, not to assist with a criminal investigation, but to "coordinate the optics." The filing describes the department's strategy bluntly:

"The only way to prevent Mr. Ding from criticizing the department was to get him to admit to wrongdoing."

Ding was arrested on a felony assault charge. He was held for nearly 24 hours before being released on bail.

Charges rejected, officer cleared

The felony case collapsed almost immediately. Days after the arrest, the San Diego County District Attorney's Office refused to prosecute. Months later, an internal DHS investigation cleared Ding of any wrongdoing.

The lawsuit acknowledges the legal vindication but argues the damage was already done:

"Even with the fabricated evidence, the District Attorney rejected the charges. But the damage was already done. Mr. Ding suffered significant injuries to his head and shoulder and harm to his reputation."

Ding had been booked on a felony, held overnight, and forced to write an apology to his alleged attacker, all while nursing a fractured rib. The charges vanished. The arrest record did not.

Silence from San Diego

ABC 10News reported reaching out to San Diego police multiple times for comment. As of Wednesday evening, the department had not responded. The City of San Diego and the officers named in the suit had not filed a response to the amended complaint.

The silence is notable. The lawsuit names not just Ferraro but "several other officers" as defendants alongside the city. The full list of those officers has not been publicly detailed in available reporting. Nor has the specific federal court or case number been identified.

What is clear from the amended complaint itself is the scope of the alleged misconduct: 911 operators who chose sides before officers arrived, body cameras that went dark at convenient moments, detectives who presented ambiguous footage as proof of a crime that even the accused officer denied occurred, and a media strategy that prioritized image management over a citizen's constitutional rights.

What the facts show, and what they don't

These are allegations in a lawsuit. They have not been tested at trial. San Diego police may have a very different account of events, but they have not offered one. The city may contest every claim in the filing, but it has not yet responded.

What is not in dispute: Ding was arrested. The District Attorney refused to prosecute. DHS cleared him internally. And the department has, so far, said nothing.

The pattern alleged in the lawsuit, witnesses ignored, cameras silenced, evidence shaped to fit a preferred narrative, and a victim turned into a suspect, is exactly the kind of institutional misconduct that erodes public trust in law enforcement. It is the kind of conduct that makes the job harder for every honest officer who puts on a badge.

If San Diego police have answers, they owe them to the public. Silence is not a rebuttal. It is a choice, and right now, it looks like the same choice the lawsuit says the department made from the start.