People v. Henderson, 2013 IL 114040

At ~1:30 a.m. officers were flagged down by an unidentified black male who reported a “possible gun” in a tan four‑door Lincoln; officers later located and stopped that vehicle though they observed no traffic violations.
Officers ordered driver and front passenger out, patted them down and handcuffed them; Staken then ordered backseat passenger (Henderson) out.
Henderson exited on the driver’s side, ran, and dropped a .22‑caliber handgun; officers arrested him after a brief chase and retrieved the gun from about two feet from the car.
Henderson was convicted at bench trial for aggravated unlawful use of a weapon and sentenced to eight years.
On appeal Henderson argued his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to move to suppress the gun because the vehicle stop was unlawful and the gun was fruit of that illegal seizure.
The Illinois Supreme Court (affirming the appellate court) held counsel was not ineffective because a suppression motion would have failed: the stop was unlawful, but Henderson’s flight interrupted the causal chain so the gun was not the fruit of the illegal stop.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Legality of vehicle stop	State: tip corroborated car/location/occupants → reasonable suspicion for Terry stop	Henderson: anonymous in‑person tip lacked predictive details; stop was unlawful	Stop was unlawful (anonymous tip resembled J.L., not White)
Whether dropped gun was fruit of illegal stop	State: gun was not product of seizure because Henderson’s flight ended seizure	Henderson: flight was direct response to illegal stop so causal link remains; gun should be suppressed	Flight interrupted causal chain under Hodari D.; gun not fruit of illegal stop
Ineffective assistance for failing to move to suppress	State: counsel’s failure excused if motion would fail; record is sufficient to decide now	Henderson: counsel ineffective because suppression motion likely would have succeeded and affected outcome	Under Strickland and Kimmelman, defendant must show suppression motion meritorious; here it would not have succeeded, so no ineffective assistance
Standard for prejudice when counsel fails to file suppression motion	N/A	Henderson urged a reasonable‑probability (Orange) standard	Court clarifies Kimmelman controls: must show suppression motion meritorious and reasonable probability of different outcome

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑part ineffective assistance test: performance and prejudice)
Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365 (1986) (when ineffective assistance rests on a missed Fourth Amendment claim, defendant must show the Fourth Amendment claim is meritorious and prejudice)
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (police may make brief investigatory stops on reasonable suspicion)
California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621 (1991) (a person who does not submit to show of authority is not seized; abandonment during flight is not fruit of seizure)
Florida v. J.L., 529 U.S. 266 (2000) (anonymous tip lacking predictive information insufficient to justify stop)
Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325 (1990) (anonymous tip that predicts future behavior can supply reasonable suspicion)
Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963) (fruit‑of‑the‑poisonous‑tree/attenuation analysis assessing whether evidence is obtained by exploitation of illegality)
Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590 (1975) (attenuation factors: temporal proximity, intervening circumstances, flagrancy of misconduct)
Brendlin v. California, 551 U.S. 249 (2007) (passengers in stopped vehicles are seized for Fourth Amendment purposes)