The police obtained a warrant to search Tzannos’s (defendant) house based on an alleged call from an informant to the house in which discussions about placing bets occurred. Tzannos was charged with activities involved with bookmaking. Tzannos filed a motion to suppress the evidence obtained at his house on the basis that the informant did not really exist. He presented evidence that only three individuals made gambling-related calls to the house on the day of the alleged informant call and that those three individuals were willing to state under oath that they were not an informant. The district court granted the motion to suppress. The prosecution appealed, arguing that it was improperly being put in a position where it would have to divulge the identity of the informant to disprove Tzannos’s claim.