In Warrick v. Superior Court (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1011, the California Supreme Court observed that, to initiate discovery under a Pitchess motion, the defendant must file a motion supported by affidavits showing good cause for the discovery. This means demonstrating the materiality of the information to the pending litigation and stating upon reasonable belief that the police agency has the records or information. This two-part showing is a "'relatively low threshold for discovery.'" (Id. at p. 1019.) Warrick teaches that, to show good cause, defense counsel's affidavit must, inter alia, "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. . . . In other cases, the trial court hearing a Pitchess motion will have before it defense counsel's affidavit, and in addition a police report, witness statements, or other pertinent documents. The court then determines whether defendant's averments, 'viewed in conjunction with the police reports,' and any other documents, suffice to 'establish a plausible factual foundation' for the alleged officer misconduct and to 'articulate a valid theory as to how the information sought might be admissible' at trial. . . . What the defendant must present is a specific factual scenario of officer misconduct that is plausible when read in light of the pertinent documents." (Warrick, supra, 35 Cal.4th at pp. 1024-1025.) The Warrick court held that a plausible scenario of officer misconduct is one 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. "A defendant must also show how the information sought could lead to or be evidence potentially admissible at trial. . . . Once that burden is met, the defendant has shown materiality under section 1043." (Warrick, supra, 35 Cal.4th at p. 1026.) A trial court's ruling on a Pitchess motion is subject to the abuse of discretion standard of appellate review. (People v. Mooc (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1216, 1228.) In Warrick v. Superior Court (2005) the California Supreme Court clarified the standard for determining good cause. To show sufficient materiality to obtain in-chambers review of the information sought, a defendant must show only that his "scenario of alleged officer misconduct could or might have occurred." (Warrick, supra, 35 Cal.4th at p. 1016.) A Pitchess motion did not have to supply a motive for the officer's alleged misconduct. (Id. at p. 1025.) Nor may the trial court "determine whether a defendant's version of events, with or without corroborating collateral evidence, is persuasive--a task that in many cases would be tantamount to determining whether the defendant is probably innocent or probably guilty." (Id. at p. 1026.) Instead, "a plausible scenario of officer misconduct is one 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. A defendant must also show how the information sought could lead to or be evidence potentially admissible at trial." (Warrick, supra, 35 Cal.4th at p. 1026.) The Warrick decision also established the test for determining whether the requested information is material to the litigation: "Has the defense shown a logical connection between the charges and the proposed defense? Is the defense request for Pitchess discovery factually specific and tailored to support its claim of officer misconduct? Will the requested Pitchess discovery support the proposed defense, or is it likely to lead to information that would support the proposed defense? Under what theory would the requested information be admissible at trial? If defense counsel's affidavit in support of the Pitchess motion adequately responds to these questions, and states 'upon reasonable belief that the governmental agency identified has the records or information from the records' (Evid. Code 1043, subd. (b)(3)), then the defendant has shown good cause for discovery and in-chambers review of potentially relevant personnel records of the police officer accused of misconduct against the defendant." (Warrick, supra, 35 Cal.4th at p. 1027.) In Warrick v. Superior Court (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1011, the police report indicated that the three arresting officers were on patrol in a marked vehicle in an area known for narcotics activities when they observed the defendant looking into a clear plastic baggie in his hand. (Id. at p. 1016.) The baggie contained "off-white solids." (Ibid.) As the officers exited their vehicle, the defendant fled, discarding numerous off-white "lumps" resembling rock cocaine. (Ibid.) One of the officers recovered 42 lumps from the ground and the other two officers detained the defendant after a short pursuit. (Ibid.) The defendant had an empty baggie in his hand and $ 2.75 in cash in his pockets. (Ibid.) Defendant was arrested and charged, inter alia, with possession of cocaine base for sale. (Id. at pp. 1016-1017.) Prior to trial, the defendant filed a Pitchess motion under Evidence Code section 1043 for disclosure of any previous citizen complaints against the three arresting officers. (Warrick, supra, 35 Cal.4th at p. 1017.) The defendant supported his motion with a declaration from his counsel setting forth the following facts: "When the three officers got out of the patrol car, defendant, who feared an arrest on an outstanding parole warrant, started to run away, but within moments the officers caught up with him. Meanwhile, there were 'people pushing and kicking and fighting with each other' as they collected from the ground objects later determined to be rock cocaine. After two officers retrieved some of the rocks, an officer told defendant, '"You *36 must have thrown this."' Defendant denied possessing or discarding any rock cocaine. He said he was in the area to buy cocaine from a seller who was present there. Defense counsel suggested that the officers, not knowing who had discarded the cocaine, falsely claimed to have seen defendant, who was running away, do so." (Id. at p. 1017.) The trial court denied the defendant's motion, including his request for an in camera review of the requested records, concluding that the defendant had failed to establish good cause. (Warrick, supra, 35 Cal.4th at p. 1018.) After the Court of Appeal denied the defendant's petition for writ of mandate, the Supreme Court granted review. (Ibid.)