What is the test for a police report alleging that Page 16 of the California Police Complaint is entrapment?

charge, but also to articulate how the discovery being sought would support such a defense or how it would impeach the officer's version of events." (Warrick v. Superior Court (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1011, 1021.) The information which the defendant seeks must be described with some specificity to ensure that the request is "limited to instances of officer misconduct related to the misconduct asserted by the defendant." (Ibid.) Moreover, the affidavit must "describe a factual scenario supporting the claimed officer misconduct. That factual scenario, depending on the circumstances of the case, may consist of a denial of the facts asserted in the police report." (Id. at pp. 1024-1025.) However, the factual scenario must be a "plausible scenario of officer misconduct," a scenario that "might or could have occurred. Such a scenario is plausible because it presents an assertion of specific police misconduct that is both internally consistent and supports the defense proposed to the charges." (Id. at p. 1026.)

Here, although the trial court granted an in camera review of complaints relating to entrapment, we note that defense counsel's affidavit was insufficient to justify that examination, because it failed to set forth a plausible factual scenario of officer misconduct in the form of entrapment. The only facts alleged (as opposed to the conclusions that the officers "engaged in conversation and tactics with the defendant amounting to entrapment" and "lured and persuaded the defendant into obtaining narcotics") were that the officers approached defendant (rather than defendant approaching the officers) and that the officers claimed one of them had a bad back. But these facts do not make a prima facie showing of officer misconduct amounting to entrapment. To make such a showing, defendant was required to allege facts sufficient to suggest that the officers' conduct was "likely to induce a normally law-abiding person to" participate in an illegal purchase of cocaine. (People v. Barraza (1979) 23 Cal.3d 675, 689.) Under this standard, alleging that

Page 16