How have courts treated a motion to disclose the identity of an informant?

The motion quoted above was followed by lengthy argument. Eventually, the only ruling made by the court was: 'Motion to disclose is denied.' That, however, was a nonruling. The prosecution's privileged refusal to disclose the identity of the informant by exercising its privilege under section 1041 was a palpable fact. Counsel's motion had assumed that he could not force a disclosure, and could only apply for the appropriate sanction, which is what he did when he asked that the information 'that this informant provided should not be considered as part of the basis for probable cause to make an arrest . . ..' ⁵ That application, however, was never ruled on. ⁶ Under these circumstances, counsel is 'presumed to have waived a ruling' as if he had never asked for it. (People v. Staver, 115 Cal.App.2d 711, 724, 252 P.2d 700, 708.) [54 Cal.App.3d 517] "(W)here the court, through inadvertence or neglect, neither rules nor reserves its ruling . . . the party who objected must make some effort to have the court Actually rule. If the point is not pressed and is forgotten, he may be deemed to have waived or abandoned it, just as if he had failed to make the objection in the first place.' (Citations.)' (People v. Obie, 41 Cal.App.3d 744, 750, 116 Cal.Rptr. 283, 286. Italics in original.) ⁷