“In his motion to suppress, Davison did not identify any false information included in the affidavit. Rather, Davison alleged only that he believed the CI could have been paid for information and that fact had been omitted from the affidavit. Davison offers only conclusory speculation in support of his allegation. Accordingly, the undersigned finds that Davison failed to meet his burden of making a substantial preliminary showing that any critical information was intentionally or recklessly omitted from the affidavit was false, or that allegedly omitted information, if included, would have deprived the affidavit of probable cause.” United States v. Davison, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 215838 (E.D. Mo. Dec. 6, 2017).
Even if defense counsel was ineffective for not challenging the search in this case, it would only cause 6.9g of cocaine to go out of the case, and it would not change the outcome. United States v. Pearson, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10694 (D. Mont. Jan. 23, 2018).