The potential that the informant “may reveal” information helpful to the defense isn’t good enough to get the informant’s identification. United States v. Reed, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25448 (S.D. Ala. Feb. 16, 2018).
The entry was based on observation of a marijuana grow. United States v. Christian, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23892 (D. V.I. Feb. 14, 2018).*
The government had consent to enter, and found a working meth lab and a child in the house. The entry into a padlocked bedroom was justified. Defense counsel wasn’t ineffective because a motion to suppress wouldn’t have been granted and the search wouldn’t change the outcome. “The likely outcome of a suppression motion if it had been filed would not have impacted the trial evidence.” McKinney v. United States, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23992 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 14, 2018).*