MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A Customs and Border Patrol (“CBP”) officer searched a cellular phone belonging to defendant Alexey Gavino during a secondary inspection at John F. Kennedy (“JFK”) International Airport and found child pornography. Gavino now moves to suppress that evidence, along with statements he made to law enforcement officers. He argues that the warrantless search of his phone at the airport violated his Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches. He also argues that the CBP officer violated his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination because the officer did not give Miranda warnings and because he compelled the defendant to provide his cell phone passcode. For the reasons explained below, the motion is denied. BACKGROUND The following facts, taken from the testimony at the suppression hearing and exhibits submitted by the government and the defendant, were established by a preponderance of the evidence. On August 30, 2021, CBP Officer Joseph Sottile was on duty at JFK Airport. Evidentiary Hearing Tr. (“Tr.”) 6:4-5; 23:24-24:1. Officer Sottile is a member of the Passenger Intelligence Enforcement Response Unit (“PIER”) of the CBP. Id. 6:6-14. Members of PIER focus on combatting narcotics and human trafficking, id. 6:21-22, and do so by, among other means, conducting secondary inspections of individuals that are “targeted” for possible inspection, id 6:25-7:6. Targeted individuals may have “lookouts” placed on them by CBP units or other law enforcement agencies. Id. 8:24-9:4. A lookout explains the reasons a person is a target and provides a summary of relevant past incidents involving that person. Id. 9:10-13. During a secondary inspection of a traveler subject to a lookout, officers commonly search the traveler’s possessions for contraband and prohibited items, id. 10:18-11:3, and engage the traveler in conversation to “get a baseline and see if they’re nervous, [if] their [] responses are normal, and make sense,” id. 11:4-9. Officer Sottile conducts between 15 to 20 secondary inspections per day. Id. 9:25-10:7. In Terminal 5 of JFK Airport, such inspections are conducted in an area that adjoins baggage claim and is accessible through a pair of sliding glass doors. Gov. Exs. 3-4. The area doubles as the location for Global Entry application interviews. Gov. Ex. 3. It has an open-floor plan consisting of several baggage inspection counters, as well as a sizeable waiting area equipped with a television. Gov. Exs. 5-6. Multiple civilians can be in the secondary inspection area at any given time, including other passengers, airline workers, and families coming for Global Entry interviews. Tr. 21:7-21. On August 30, 2021, the defendant returned to the United States from the Dominican Republic through JFK Airport. Id. 24:10-16. A few hours before the defendant’s plane landed, Officer Sottile reviewed a lookout that had been placed on the defendant. Id. 24:19-24. The lookout noted that on a 2019 air trip from Dallas to Los Angeles, law enforcement officers seized $37,000 in cash from the defendant’s person, and the defendant never attempted to retrieve the cash afterward. Id. 25:4-8, 25:19-26:3. Officer Sottile met the defendant outside the primary inspection area in Terminal 5. Id. 26:13-16. Officer Sottile wore plainclothes with his badge hanging visibly around his neck. Id. 27:6-15. He was carrying a firearm, though it was tucked into his clothing and not visible to the defendant. Id. 27:16-23. Officer Sottile identified himself and informed the defendant that he had been selected for a secondary exam. Id. 26:20-25. As Officer Sottile accompanied the defendant to the secondary inspection area, he did not show his weapon, tell the defendant he was armed, or place his hands on the defendant. Id. 27:1-2; 27:24-28:2. The defendant was never told he was under arrest or placed in handcuffs. Id. 29:2-6. The defendant did not resist. Id. 27:3-5. However, according to Officer Sottile, the defendant was not free to leave at this point. Id. 43:9- 11; 45:5-7. Once in the secondary inspection area, Officer Sottile searched the defendant’s bag. Id. 29:10-15. Officer Sottile did not recall if there were other passengers present in the secondary inspection area at the time. Id. 28:3-6. And while there were other CBP officers in the area, they were going about their business and did not surround the defendant during his interactions with Officer Sottile. Id. 35:18-25. While Officer Sottile searched the defendant’s bag, he asked the defendant about his trip to the Dominican Republic and about any past incidents where he had been arrested or had anything taken from him. Id. 29:16-22. While Officer Sottile’s demeanor was “calm” and “cordial,” the defendant was “[n]ervous.” Id. 31:8-16. When asked whether he ever had anything taken from him, the defendant initially answered “no,” id. 29:23-24, which Officer Sottile recognized to be contrary to the information provided by the lookout, id. 30:23-31:7. Officer Sottile then asked the defendant whether he ever had money seized from him, at which point the defendant admitted that he had. Id. 29:24-30:1. The defendant told the officer that he had approximately $30,000 taken from him that he was going to use to buy a dog. Id. 30:2-5. When asked what kind of dog he was planning to purchase, the defendant at first answered that he did not know because he was buying the dog on behalf of his friend, id. 30:5-8, then later stated that the dog was actually for his friend’s brother, id. 30:8-10. And when Officer Sottile asked the defendant to call his friend or his friend’s brother, the defendant stated that his friend had died and that he no longer talked to the brother and didn’t have his number. Id. 30:14-19. Officer Sottile ultimately concluded that the defendant’s answers were “reluctant” and “didn’t make any sense.” Id. 31:16-20. At this point, Officer Sottile asked the defendant for his cell phone. Id. 30:21-22. Officer Sottile stated that he suspected the cash seized from the defendant in 2019 was intended to buy marijuana and “asked him to open the phone so I can verify what I suspected to be true.” Id. 32:6- 12. At the same time, Officer Sottile testified, he was looking for potential evidence of the defendant’s narcotics trafficking activity from his trip to the Dominican Republic, such as evidence of “large sums of cash and large amounts of narcotics.” Id. 37:15-38:1. Officer Sottile explained that the CBP knows the Dominican Republic as a country from which narcotics are frequently trafficked. Id. 7:10-15; 24:11-14. The defendant handed his cell phone to Officer Sottile in the powered on, locked position. Id. 32:13-18. When Officer Sottile asked the defendant to unlock the phone, the defendant responded, in sum and substance, “you’re the government, you can unlock it yourself, no?” Id. 32:21-23. Officer Sottile replied that he could, but that he would need to send the defendant’s phone to a lab, which could take several months. Id. 32:23-25. In response, the defendant apologized and unlocked the phone and gave it back to Officer Sottile. Id. 33:1-5. Officer Sottile also asked the defendant for the phone’s passcode, which the defendant provided without protest. Id. 33:2-15. Officer Sottile then placed the phone in airplane mode and conducted a “basic” or “manual” search of the phone, id. 33:19-34:2, meaning that he scrolled through the phone without uploading the phone’s contents to a computer or attaching any electronic devices to the phone, id. 20:12-21. At some point during the manual search, the phone locked, and Officer Sottile used the passcode to unlock the phone. Id. 37: 1-14. After around five minutes of searching the phone, id. 77:24- 78:1, and approximately ten to fifteen minutes from the start of the secondary exam, id. 35:5-8, Officer Sottile discovered images of what he believed to be child pornography, id. 33:23-34:2. After discovering these images, Officer Sottile contacted both his supervisor and Homeland Security Investigations (“HSI”). Id. 34:16-19. Shortly thereafter, a HSI officer arrived at the secondary inspection area. Id. 34:20-22. She conducted a manual search of the defendant’s phone, obtained a Miranda waiver from the defendant, and proceeded to interview the defendant, who admitted that he had received child pornography on his cell phone. See Mot. to Suppress, Ex. A, Aff. in Supp. of App. For Warrant
