In Birt v. Superior Court (1973) 34 Cal.App.3d 934, the victim came home and saw two men loading some of the victim's possessions into a rental van. When the victim confronted them, the men fled. Authorities found a cigarette lighter in the front seat. The defendant's print was on the lighter, but nowhere else in the van or on the stolen items. The defendant was charged with burglary. The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's denial of the defendant's motion to set aside the information. It reasoned that the van itself had been available to the public and that "only by guesswork, speculation, or conjecture can it be inferred that petitioner was inside the van, or in the area, at the time of the . . . burglary." (Id. at p. 938.) In Birt v. Superior Court (1973) the intended victim of a burglary returned home and surprised two men in the process of loading a Ryder rental van with his property. (Birt, supra, 34 Cal.App.3d at pp. 936-937.) One of the petitioner's fingerprints was found on a cigarette lighter located on the front passenger seat. (Id. at p. 937.) The petitioner, a female, contended she was committed by the magistrate without probable cause. (Id. at p. 936.) The court found it "appalling" that the petitioner was being prosecuted on such scanty evidence. (Id. at p. 937.) The court pointed out that the lighter was a readily movable object, it was not shown to have been taken from the burgled home, none of the petitioner's fingerprints were shown to have been found in the home or on the property, other fingerprints were found in the van, and the van was a rental vehicle available to the public. (Id. at p. 938.) Only by speculation or guesswork could it be inferred that the petitioner was inside the van or in the area at the time of the burglary. (Ibid.) The Brit court reasoned that a fingerprint on a cigarette lighter found inside a rented truck used by two male burglars was not sufficient to hold the female petitioner to answer for the burglary.