Skip to content
Name: People v. Thompson
Case #: B184566
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 6
Opinion Date: 08/02/2006
Summary

The trial court did not err by denying appellant’s Pitchess motion where appellant made a factual showing which was not plausible. Although the Supreme Court in Warrick v. Superior Court set a relatively low threshold to compel an in camera review, which is a “plausible factual foundation,” here, the showing was insufficient as it was neither internally consistent or complete. Appellant asserted that 11 police officers planted evidence and falsified a police report. The explanation was not rejected for a lack of credibility, but because it didn’t present a factual account of the scope of the alleged police misconduct nor did it provide an alternative explanation for appellant’s actions.