P.

DISCUSSION

1. The Trial Court Properly Denied Appellant’s Motion to Traverse the Search Warrant(s) and Fulfilled Its Hobbs Responsibilities. a. Pertinent Facts.1 (1) Proceedings Prior to the Filing of the Notice of Appeal. The nonconfidential record reflects as follows. On March 15, 2011, Judge Beverly Reid O’Connell issued a search warrant in this case. On March 22, 2011, Judge Craig Richman issued a second search warrant. On July 25, 2011, appellant filed a motion to traverse “warrant” and suppress evidence. The motion sought suppression of all evidence seized from, inter alia, 1967 Park Rose Avenue, Duarte, California, “during the service of that warrant on March 15, 2011.” (This was apparently appellant’s home address.)

1 The facts of the offenses are not pertinent to this appeal. Suffice it to say on March 15, 2011, appellant committed the above offenses, evidence of which deputies discovered following a traffic stop.

2 The memorandum of points and authorities indicated as follows. Based on reports received in this case, it appeared the People were relying on statements by an investigating officer, Detective Gabriel Navarro. He swore under penalty of perjury that he…