Can a defendant be held to answer without probable cause if the commitment is based entirely on incompetent evidence?

A defendant has been held to answer without probable cause if the commitment is based entirely on incompetent evidence. Accordingly, in such a case, the trial court should grant a motion to set aside the information. (Priestly v. Superior Court (1958) 50 Cal.2d 812, 815, 330 P.2d 39.)

[189 Cal.App.3d 1339] In proceedings under section 995, the magistrate is the finder of fact. The superior court sits as a reviewing court and must draw every legitimate inference in favor of the information. It cannot substitute its judgment as to the credibility or weight of the evidence for that of the magistrate. On review by appeal or writ, the appellate court in effect disregards the ruling of the superior court and directly reviews the determination of the magistrate holding the defendant to answer. (People v. Laiwa (1983) 34 Cal.3d 711, 718, 195 Cal.Rptr. 503, 669 P.2d 1278.)

2. The arrest was unsupported by probable cause, tainting evidence which flowed from it.

a. The Thursday morning arrest was illegal because it was not based on probable cause.