The potential that the informant \u201cmay reveal\u201d information helpful to the defense isn\u2019t good enough to get the informant\u2019s identification. United States v. Reed, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25448 (S.D. Ala. Feb. 16, 2018).<\/p>\n
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).*<\/p>\n
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\u2019t ineffective because a motion to suppress wouldn\u2019t have been granted and the search wouldn\u2019t change the outcome. \u201cThe likely outcome of a suppression motion if it had been filed would not have impacted the trial evidence.\u201d McKinney v. United States, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23992 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 14, 2018).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The potential that the informant \u201cmay reveal\u201d information helpful to the defense isn\u2019t good enough to get the informant\u2019s identification. United States v. Reed, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25448 (S.D. Ala. Feb. 16, 2018). The entry was based on observation … Continue reading