Need-to-know stuff for judges and prosecutors (as well as defense attorneys): Pursuant to paragraph (a) of section 991: “If the defendant is in custody at the time he appears before the magistrate for arraignment and, if the public offense is a misdemeanor to which the defendant has pleaded not guilty, the magistrate, on motion of counsel for the defendant or the defendant, shall determine whether there is probable cause to believe that a public offense has been committed and that the defendant is guilty thereof.” The rest of section 991 (paragraphs (b) through (e)) describes what’s admissible in the way of evidence and the procedures to use in litigating such a motion. In the recent case of Barajas v. Superior Court (Oct. 4, 2019) 40 Cal.App.5th 944, the defendant moved to dismiss a misdemeanor charge of carrying a dirk or dagger for lack of probable cause under P.C. § 991, arguing that the knife was recovered illegally and should be suppressed. The appellate court, however, concluded that suppression of alleged illegally obtained evidence cannot be litigated on a motion to dismiss under § 991. The probable cause determination contemplated by § 991 does not include a determination whether evidence was unlawfully obtained. The sole and exclusive means for a misdemeanor defendant to secure that determination is via a noticed motion to suppress under P.C. § 1538.5. The only question for a trial court to answer in a defendant’s § 991 motion is whether facts exist (that have not yet been excluded by operation of a properly noticed § 1538.5 motion) sufficient to warrant a prudent person in believing tha