2022 IL App (1st) 163406
Ill. App. Ct.2022Background
- Around 11:00 p.m., police received a report of gunfire near 99th and Hoxie; no shooter description was given. Officers in plain clothes/unmarked car later observed a black Nissan backing into a driveway; the driver and passenger ducked as the car passed. The Nissan drove off and was tracked by helicopter to a parking lot near a small porch.
- Officer Cadichon and partner arrived, pointed guns at two men (McClendon and Poe) standing on the porch, ordered them not to move, and took them into custody. Cadichon testified McClendon moved a foot or two, produced and dropped a metal object that another officer retrieved as a gun from behind a porch couch.
- At the suppression hearing the trial court denied the motion based on standing; at trial Cadichon’s testimony was amplified (matching the helicopter video) that the two men were already on the porch and were ordered to stop before the gun was discovered. No GSR or fingerprint tests were performed on the gun or on the defendants’ clothing.
- The State relied on the gun (and a post-arrest statement by McClendon) to charge McClendon as an armed habitual criminal; the jury convicted and the trial court sentenced him to eight years.
- McClendon filed a postconviction petition arguing ineffective assistance for failing to press an illegal-seizure suppression argument. The appellate court consolidated the direct appeal and the appeal from dismissal of the postconviction petition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legality of the stop/seizure | Officers had a basis to detain because of report of nearby gunfire and suspicious flight/ducking | Ducking in a car and subsequent presence on a porch did not supply reasonable, articulable suspicion; multiple officers pointing guns and ordering them to stop constituted a seizure | Seizure occurred when officers drew weapons, surrounded them, and ordered them to stay; officers lacked reasonable suspicion and the seizure was unlawful |
| Admissibility of the gun (abandonment/fruit of poisonous tree) | State invoked Hodari D. to argue abandoned property is admissible | Abandonment occurred after and because of the seizure; not voluntary, so the gun (and related fruits) are tainted and must be suppressed | Abandonment was a product of the illegal seizure; Hodari D. does not control because Hodari discarded before being seized; the gun and subsequent fruits should have been suppressed |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel | Counsel’s performance was adequate; even if argued suppression might fail, conviction stands | Counsel unreasonably failed to argue the meritorious illegal-seizure suppression; suppression would have removed all State evidence and changed the outcome | Failure to press the meritorious suppression claim was prejudicial; without the gun/statements the State had no case — conviction reversed and sentence vacated |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544 (defining factors to determine a seizure)
- California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621 (abandoned property tossed before submission to police is not fruit of a seizure)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (two-part ineffective-assistance standard)
- United States v. Beck, 602 F.2d 726 (abandonment must be voluntary, not caused by police misconduct)
- People v. Cosby, 231 Ill.2d 262 (Illinois discussion of factors indicating a seizure)
- People v. Thomas, 198 Ill.2d 103 (definition of seizure under the Fourth Amendment)
- People v. Henderson, 2013 IL 114040 (Illinois application of fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree and attenuation doctrines)