1

Filed 11/15/22 P. v. Thorsson CA1/4

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

LOUIS RICHARD THORSSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

A164924

(Solano County

Super. Ct. No. VCR238953)

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

Defendant Louis Richard Thorsson was found guilty after a jury trial of 

possession of a firearm by a felon (Pen. Code, § 29800, subd. (a)(1)), with 

aggravating circumstance found true by the court, and was sentenced to 

prison for the midterm of two years. Before trial the court granted 

defendant’s Pitchess motion (Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531) 

to review the personnel files of the two police officers involved in defendant’s 

arrest and in locating the weapon defendant allegedly discarded nearby, and 

to produce relevant documents located in the files. The motion requested all 

personnel documents relating to the two officers, including “All complaints 

and internal affairs inquiries from any and all sources (including but not 

1 California Standards of Judicial Administration, section 8.1 provides:

“The Courts of Appeal should dispose of causes that raise no substantial 

issues of law or fact by memorandum or other abbreviated form of opinion.”
2

limited to co-worker or inmate complaints, citizen complaints, internal affairs 

complaints/investigations and criminal investigations) relating [to] false

arrest, perjury, dishonesty, writing of false police reports, false or misleading 

internal reports including but not limited to false overtime or medical 

reports, reports related to lack of competence/sloppiness/failure to follow 

department procedures, all records related to the use of excessive force and/or 

threatening and aggressive behavior/tactics, and any other evidence of 

misconduct amounting to moral turpitude within the meaning of People v. 

Wheeler (1992) 4 Cal.4th 284,” and “Any other material which is exculpatory 

or impeaching within the meaning of Brady v. Maryland (1963) 373 U.S. 83.” 

The sergeant in charge of the police department’s internal affairs, 

placed under oath, produced the personnel files of both officers, and in 

camera the court reviewed both files, consisting of “personnel payroll, 

attendance, evaluations, accommodations, discipline, education certificates 

and miscellaneous.” As to one officer, the court found “nothing to disclose, . . . 

not[ing] in particular [in] the evaluations section, there currently is no 

evaluations in there. And in terms of discipline, again, that section again is 

empty as well as the evaluations. There is nothing there.” As to the second 

officer, the court found one irrelevant citizen complaint2 and otherwise 

“nothing to disclose out of the personnel file . . . not[ing] in particular [in 

the]evaluations section, that section is empty. There’s nothing to disclose. As 

well as the discipline sections, also empty. And there is nothing contained in 

there. So I’ll find that there is nothing to disclose out of the [officer’s] file.” 

Defendant’s appeal asserts no errors but simply requests this court “to 

conduct an independent examination of the sealed proceedings and materials, 

2 A citizen complained that the officer had lacked compassion in failing 

to advise a relative reporting a sexual assault to take the victim to a doctor. 
3

reviewing both the merits of the trial court’s determination and the adequacy 

of the record.” The Attorney General has expressed no objection. After 

reviewing the two personnel files, the trial court did not “consistent with 

customary procedure” make the sealed records part of the record on appeal so 

that this court might independently examine the materials and confirm that 

the court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to disclose any of the 

contents of the files. (See People v. Hughes (2002) 27 Cal.4th 287, 330; People 

v. Samayoa (1997) 15 Cal.4th 795, 827.) Nor did the court have the 

documents copied and the copies placed in a sealed envelope, or prepare a list 

of the documents considered. Nonetheless, the trial court did “simply state for 

the record what documents it examined,” which may be sufficient to permit 

meaningful appellate review. (People v. Mooc (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1216, 1229.) 

Having reviewed the sealed transcript of the in camera proceedings in which 

the trial court examined the complete personnel files and stated explicitly 

what the files did and did not contain, we are satisfied the court properly 

reviewed the materials and did not abuse its discretion in failing to direct 

disclosure of any of their contents. There being no documents even touching 

upon the officers’ truthfulness, candor or any questionable conduct or 

practices, there simply was nothing to produce.

The judgment is affirmed.

POLLAK, P. J.

WE CONCUR:

STREETER, J.

GOLDMAN, J