Does the probable cause statement in support of warrant no. 3 should have been stricken in its entirety?

The issue raised by our Wende review is whether the probable cause statement in support of warrant no. 3 should have been stricken in its entirety because the surveillance described therein would not have occurred but for Potter's illegal searches (as defendant contends) or, alternatively, whether the trial court properly excised language pertaining to information derived from warrant nos. 1 and 2 and then found warrant no. 3 supported by probable cause based on the remaining information and the totality of the circumstances (as the Attorney General contends). Before turning to the merits of this issue, however, we note the Attorney General's argument that defendant did not preserve this Fourth Amendment claim for appellate review. This contention is based on the failure of defendant's trial counsel to renew the suppression motion in the superior court, as required by Penal Code section 1538.5, subdivision (m), and People v. Lilienthal (1978) 22 Cal.3d 891, 896. Defendant counters that renewal was not required in this case. We need not resolve whether the issue was preserved because even if it was, we conclude the trial court did not err in denying defendant's motion to quash warrant no. 3.⁶