With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 320, 333 (2013), aff'd, 314 Conn. 410, 102 A.3d 694 (2014) (stating information should be specific and should set forth the issue in the case to which the personnel information will relate); People v. Peters, 39 Misc.3d 1226, 972 N.Y.S.2d 145 (N.Y.App.Div.2013); State v. Blackwell, 120 Wash.2d 822, 845 P.2d 1017, 1019 (1993) (en banc). As the Appellate Court of Connecticut noted in Jones, “A showing sufficient to warrant an in camera review of a personnel file requires more than mere speculation.” 59 A.3d at 333. See also State v. Schwartz, 26 Or.App. 279, 552 P.2d 571, 574 (1976) (finding defense attorney’s argument that “he had heard of a similar incident involving one of the same officers” to be an insufficient showing); State v. Sagner, 18 Or.App. 464, 525 P.2d 1073, 1077 (1974) (<HOLDING>). [¶ 24.] The Supreme Court of Washington

A: holding that an inmates mandamus petition challenging a disciplinary report imposing 15 days disciplinary confinement was a collateral criminal proceeding because the disciplinary confinement limited petitioners ability to earn gain time
B: holding that where the conviction was final the disciplinary commission was not authorized to assume the roles of both an accusatory tribunal and the ultimate determiner of guilt and that the separation of responsibility between the disciplinary board and the disciplinary commission provides constitutional due process
C: holding warrant valid where search warrant application affidavit was signed and probable cause existed for issuance of warrant
D: holding that counsels pure conjecture of officers suspected disciplinary problems was insufficient to warrant production
D.