MEMORANDUM & ORDER On February 22, 2019, Frank Segui (“Mr. Segui”) was arrested by Port Authority Police Officers at the Port Authority Bus Terminal (the “Bus Terminal”), located at 625 Eighth Avenue in Manhattan, New York, for refusing to leave the “Snacks-N-Wheels” food establishment and harassing one of the establishment’s employees. Following his arrest, Mr. Segui told an officer of the Port Authority Police Department that he intended to travel to Michigan to kill his former professor, setting in motion further questioning and leading to the issuance and execution of search warrants which revealed evidence of Mr. Segui’s plan. On April 23, 2019, Mr. Segui was indicted by a grand jury in the Eastern District of New York for Transmission of Threat to Injure, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §875(c). (ECF No. 13, Indictment (“Ind.”).) Mr. Segui’s indictment relies principally on an October 30, 2018 email from Mr. Segui to his former professor, which was identified during execution of the aforementioned search warrants. After pleading not guilty and electing to proceed to trial, Mr. Segui moved pursuant to Rule 12(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure to suppress the October 30, 2018 email and all other evidence obtained as a result of his February 22, 2019 arrest at the Bus Terminal, which, Mr. Segui argues, was effected without probable cause. (ECF No. 26, Defendant’s Motion to Suppress (“Def. Br.”).) On October 10, 2019, the Court held an evidentiary hearing on Mr. Segui’s motion to suppress. The Government called as a witness Port Authority Police Officer Jillian Biagini (“Officer Biagini”) who, along with two colleagues, arrested Mr. Segui on February 22, 2019. In light of Officer Biagini’s credible testimony and the parties’ respective submissions on this subject, and for the reasons set forth below, the Court finds that there was probable cause to arrest Mr. Segui and, therefore, denies his motion to suppress. Findings of Fact1 On February 22, 2019, at approximately 4:15 p.m., Port Authority Police Officers Biagini, Lomando (“Officer Lomando”), and Hemmer (“Officer Hemmer”) responded to a disturbance call from Snacks-N-Wheels, a Greyhound-operated food establishment located in the lower level of the Bus Terminal. (Transcript of October 10, 2019 Suppression Hearing (“Tr.”), at 7:13-8:19.) Officer Biagini led the response, with Officers Lomando and Hemmer providing back up. (Id. at 8:20-24.) Upon arriving at the scene, Officer Biagini spoke with Jerry Hobbs (“Mr. Hobbs”),2 the 60-year-old Snacks-N-Wheels employee who reported the disturbance. (Id. at 8:25-9:06.) Mr. Hobbs was the only employee working at Snacks-N-Wheels that day. (Id. at 9:07-09.) Mr. Hobbs informed Officer Biagini that “there was an individual refusing to leave the area.” (Id. at 9:10-13.) Officer Biagini later learned that this individual was Mr. Segui (and identified him in court during the October 10, 2019 suppression hearing). (Id. at 9:14-17.) After speaking to Mr. Hobbs, Officer Biagini approached Mr. Segui. (Id. at 10:15-16.) Officer Biagini asked Mr. Segui “if he was buying any food, [and] he stated no.” (Id. at 10:17-21.) As described by Officer Biagini, and as shown in photographs admitted as Government Exhibits 1 through 8,3 Snacks- N-Wheels had “clearly posted” signs “[indicating] that [its facilities are] for food customers only.” (Id. at 10:23-24.) These signs read as follows: “Seating is for food service customers only. All others are asked to find seating elsewhere so our customers may enjoy their meals.” (Id. at 20:16-21:04; Government’s Exhibit 3.) Officer Biagini explained to Mr. Segui “why he needed to leave” the establishment, namely, for noncompliance with the establishment’s “food customers only” policy. (Tr. at 10:17-21.) Mr. Segui initially complied and began to exit the area, walking side-by-side with Officers Biagini, Lomando, and Hemmer. (Id. at 11:02-21.) Officer Biagini did not place Mr. Segui under arrest at this time, and explained her decision as follows: “As a police officer we can get discretion. At that time the defendant was compliant, and he was, you know, walking out no problem. So with my discretion, we were just going to let him leave the area.” (Id. at 42:16-23.) As Mr. Segui walked out of the establishment, he and Mr. Hobbs “exchanged words with each other.” (Id. at 11:22-25.) Officer Biagini did not remember the tone of the exchange or what these individuals said to each other. (Id. at 35:24-36:10.) “After the words were exchanged, [Mr. Segui] turned around and charged towards [Mr. Hobbs].” (Id. at 12:03-09.) Officer Biagini used images of Snacks-N-Wheels introduced as Government Exhibits 1 through 8 to illustrate Mr. Segui’s path back into the establishment. The exhibits showed that Snacks-N-Wheels was an establishment in excess of thirty feet, with exits at opposite ends of the area and “six or seven” sitting or standing tables in the middle. (See id. at 20:04-06; 32:15-17.) Before charging towards Mr. Hobbs, Mr. Segui and the accompanying officers were “close to the exit” at one side of the establishment. (See id. at 21:08-25.) After the pair “exchanged words,” Mr. Segui turned back into Snacks-N-Wheels and ran towards the opposing exit, specifically, the clerk’s counter, behind which stood Mr. Hobbs. (See id. at 22:04-16; Government’s Exhibit 1.) Mr. Segui ran roughly thirty feet and managed to reach the counter, round its corner, and make it behind the counter to within five or ten feet of Mr. Hobbs before being subdued by the officers. (See id. at 22:17-25, 23:20-24:22.) The officers “physically had to grab [Mr. Segui] to stop him from reaching Mr. Hobbs.” (Id. at 45:02-08.) Officer Biagini and her colleagues then informed Mr. Segui that he was being placed under arrest. (Id. at 13:16-18.) They decided to arrest Mr. Segui at this point “[b]ecause [he] turned around, charged towards the employee, [and] continued to trespass.” (Id. at 42:24-43:05.) Asked to clarify what she meant by “continued to trespass,” Officer Biagini explained that “[Mr. Segui] was asked to leave and he actually never left the establishment. And after we told him to leave, he continued to stay in the establishment.” (Id. at 43:03-08.) Officer Biagini also explained that the officers physically stopped Mr. Segui because “he was continuing towards Mr. Hobbs,” and “[they] did not want [Mr. Hobbs] harmed.” (Id. at 45:02-08.) Mr. Segui resisted arrest, “refus[ing] to give [the officers] his hands.” (Id. at 13:16-18.) Instead, Mr. Segui “reached over the counter and grabbed onto the opposite side.” (Id. at 12:24-13:04.) It took the officers approximately ten seconds to “overpower [Mr. Segui's] grip” and “put his hands in handcuffs.” (Id. at 13:19-14:01.) Once subdued, Mr. Segui was “placed under arrest for harassment, trespass, and resisting arrest.” (Id. at 14:05-07.) Officer Biagini identified trespass and harassment in the second degree as arrestable offenses under New York law. (Id. at 26:07-12.) Following his arrest, Mr. Segui was given Miranda warnings (Def. Br. at 1) and “escorted back to the police desk” (Tr. at 14:08-11). Officer Biagini explained that it takes approximately two minutes to walk from Snacks-N-Wheels to the police desk. (Id. at 14:12-14.) During the walk, Mr. Segui, without prompting, stated to the officers that “he wanted to be arrested.” (Id. at 14:19-15:02.) Upon arriving at the police desk, Mr. Segui made a statement to the Port Authority Police Department Stationhouse Officer about “having a ticket to go to Michigan and about to kill his former professor.” (Id. at 40:22-41:13.) Officer Biagini did not personally hear this statement. (Id. at 41:14-15.) Mr. Segui was later turned over to the FBI for questioning. (Def. Br. at 1.) The FBI elicited the same statements made by Mr. Segui to the Port Authority Police Department, including (as summarized by defense counsel) that Mr. Segui planned to travel to Michigan to kill his former professor, and that Mr. Segui had previously purchased an axe for this purpose on the internet but left it in his parents’ apartment. (Id.) The next day, FBI agents “went to Mr. Segui’s parents’ home, received his father’s consent to search Mr. Segui’s bedroom and closet, and recovered an axe, sheath[,] and packaging purchased on the internet[,] as [Mr. Segui] had described.” (Id. at 1-2.) In advance of the October 10, 2019 evidentiary hearing, Mr. Segui provided an affidavit setting forth his version of the foregoing events. (See generally ECF No. 26-1, Defendant’s Affidavit in Support of Defendant’s Motion to Suppress (“Def. Aff.”).) The affidavit corroborated much of Officer Biagini’s testimony. Mr. Segui conceded, inter alia, that as he waited in Snacks-N-Wheels, “[a] man working [there] asked [him] to leave,” but “[he] did not leave.” (Id. 2.) Mr. Segui also conceded that, after initially complying with Officer Biagini’s directive to exit the premises, he moved “toward[s] [Mr. Hobbs],” in violation of the orders made by Mr. Hobbs and Officer Biagini that he exit the establishment. (Id.) The primary discrepancies between Officer Biagini’s testimony and Mr. Segui’s affidavit are whether Mr. Segui “walked,” rather than ran, towards Mr. Hobbs, and whether Mr. Segui resisted arrest. (See id.) The Court finds Officer Biagini’s testimony to be credible and, to the extent her testimony conflicts with Mr. Segui’s affidavit, the Court finds in favor of Officer Biagini’s detailed, credible, and thorough account of the events leading to Mr. Segui’s arrest. Moreover, irrespective of whether Mr. Segui walked or charged back into the establishment towards Mr. Hobbs, or resisted arrest, Officer Biagini credibly described facts that would lead a reasonable officer to believe that Mr. Segui turned and charged towards Mr. Hobbs and then resisted arrest.4 Procedural History On February 25, 2019, Magistrate Judge Steven L. Tiscione signed a complaint authorizing the arrest of Mr. Segui for stalking, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §2261A(2), and transmission of a threat to injure, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §875(c). (ECF No. 1, Complaint (“Compl.”).) On March 12, 2019, quoting in part Mr. Segui’s statements at the Bus Terminal, an application for a search warrant was signed by Magistrate Judge Ramon E. Reyes, Jr. for Mr. Segui’s computer. (ECF No. 30-1, Affidavit in Support of an Application Under Rule 41 for Warrants to Search and Seize,
