*1 Defendant, charged with attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, Penal Law §§110/265.01(2) (two counts), criminal possession of knives or dangerous instruments, Administrative Code, “AC” 10-133(b), unlawfully dealing with fireworks and*2
dangerous fireworks, Penal Law §270.02(2)(a)(iii) (two counts), and possession of handcuffs, AC 10-147(a), moves to suppress both physical evidence and post-arrest statements. All of the challenged evidence was obtained after law enforcement officers searched the defendant’s backpack in the lobby of Trump Tower.The Court concludes that search of defendant’s backpack was lawful. Accordingly, everything that flowed from that search was also lawful: the recovery of the items contained in the backpack, defendant’s arrest, his post-arrest statements, and the subsequent search of his apartment, computer and cell phone. The motion to suppress is accordingly DENIED in its entirety.I. FINDINGS OF FACTA. CredibilityOn October 26, 2017, the Court conducted an evidentiary hearing on defendant’s motion. The People called two witnesses, Officer Dallys Talley of the United States Secret Service, and New York City Police Officer Rhomane Ogle. The Court, having carefully observed the officers’ demeanor on the witness stand, fully credits their testimony.B. The Hearing TestimonyAt approximately 6:30 p.m. on December 12, 2016, defendant entered Trump Tower, located at 721 Fifth Avenue, in New York County, through an entrance to the building located in a Nike store on East 57th Street. Trump Tower was, and still is, the New York residence of then President-Elect Trump and his family.Upon entering, defendant encountered a security checkpoint preceded by two signs, one from the Secret Service, and one from the Trump organization, warning that persons entering the building and their belongings were subject to search. The Secret Service sign also warned that persons entering the building were consenting to a search of their belongings. Past those signs, immediately in front of the defendant, there was an X-ray machine, which was staffed
