MEMORANDUM ORDER Kwame Anderson (“Mr. Anderson” or “Defendant”) was indicted on January 4, 2024, on a charge of violating 18 U.S.C. Section 922(g)(1), which prohibits individuals previously convicted of a felony from possessing firearms. (Docket entry no. 1 (“Indictment”).) Before the Court are two Defense motions: (1) to suppress the evidence seized during Mr. Anderson’s arrest (docket entry no. 10 (“Motion to Suppress”)): and (2) to dismiss the Indictment (docket entry no. 13 (“MTD”)). The Government opposes both motions. The Court has considered the various submissions of the Parties carefully and, for the following reasons, denies both of Defendant’s motions. BACKGROUND The following factual summary is drawn from the parties’ written submissions and body camera footage.1 In 2015, Mr. Anderson was convicted of the felony offense of brandishing a firearm in connection with a drug-trafficking conspiracy, in violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 924(c). On July 5, 2023, Police Officers Wesler, McCabe, Medina, and Vargas (the “Officers”) were patrolling Mr. Anderson’s neighborhood in an unmarked car. The Officers’ assignment that night was to “canvas[] ‘[h]igh crime areas.’” (Docket entry no. 20 (“Gov. Mem.”) at 9.) Officer McCabe reported that he frequently canvassed Mr. Anderson’s neighborhood and that there had been shootings in the area in the past. (Id.) Officer Wesler proffered that he goes to the area “a few times a week” and that the area around Mr. Anderson’s street has occasional shootings. (Id.) Around 2:00 a.m., the Officers saw Mr. Anderson on the street outside of his apartment building, 1925 Harrison Avenue. Mr. Anderson was standing in front of a building and was visible from the Officers’ vantage point on the street, which was well lit by streetlamps and lights on the buildings. (Gov. Ex. A (“Wesler Body Cam.”).) The Officers stopped the car and observed Mr. Anderson from the car, which was approximately ten yards away from Mr. Anderson, for approximately fifteen seconds. (Docket entry no. 12 (“Def. Mem.”) at 2; Gov. Mem. at 3.) All four Officers have proffered testimony to the effect that they observed that Mr. Anderson was wearing a black cross-body bag that appeared to be “weighed down,” by something “consistent with the size of [a] firearm.” (Def. Mem. at 3; Gov. Mem. at 2.) Mr. Anderson acknowledges that he was wearing a black cross-body bag but denies that he had “a weapon or any contraband in plain view.” (Docket entry no. 11 (“Anderson Decl.”) 2.) Officer Wesler exited the back seat of the vehicle and approached Mr. Anderson. (Wesler Body Cam.) He shone his flashlight toward Mr. Anderson and said, “Sup bro?” but did not verbally identify himself as a Police Officer. (Id.) Immediately, Mr. Anderson took flight from the Officers, the rest of whom were emerging from the unmarked vehicle, and entered the apartment building. (Id.) Officers Wesler, Medina, and Vargas were wearing dark-colored Neighborhood Safety Team (“NST”) uniforms, which displayed the word “POLICE” in white lettering on the upper right chest area, a light-colored shield on the upper left chest area above a patch with the officer’s name and badge number in white lettering, and the words “NYPD POLICE” across the back. (Def. Mem. at 2; see also Wesler Body Cam; Gov. Ex. B (“McCabe Body Cam”); Gov. Ex. D (“Vargas Body Cam.”).) Officer Medina wore a standard NYPD uniform. (Def. Mem. at 2; Gov. Ex. C (“Medina Body Cam.”).) All four wore belts with walkie talkies, handcuffs and other police equipment attached. Mr. Anderson states that he did not perceive that they were police officers. (Anderson Decl. 4.) Officer Wesler, followed by the others, pursued Mr. Anderson inside the building, up a flight of stairs, and down a long hallway, instructing the Defendant to stop fleeing. (Wesler Body Cam.) As Mr. Anderson ran down the hallway, he grabbed the cross-body bag, pulling it over his head and into his hands in front of his body, where the bag was no longer visible from Officer Wesler’s vantage point. (Id.) Officer Wesler then shoved the Defendant from behind, pushing him toward a door at the end of the hallway; the Defendant hit the door and dropped the cross-body bag before briefly reeling back toward the Officer. (Id.) At that time, Officers Wesler and McCabe reached Mr. Anderson and shoved him to the floor, at which point Officers Medina and Vargas struck Mr. Anderson, grabbed at his hands, which he had covering his face and head, and repeatedly said, “Give me your hands.” (Id.; see also Medina Body Cam; McCabe Body Cam.) While Mr. Anderson was being subdued, Officer McCabe searched the cross-body bag and, upon finding that it contained a gun, alerted the other Officers. (McCabe Body Cam.) Officer Vargas handcuffed Mr. Anderson and placed him under arrest. (Vargas Body Cam.) Mr. Anderson’s bag in fact contained a black plastic bag with a firearm, magazine, and ammunition inside it. (Def. Mem. at 3.) On January 4, 2024, Mr. Anderson was indicted for possessing a firearm after having been previously convicted of a felony, in violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 922(g). (Indictment.) On February 9, 2024, the Defense filed the instant motions challenging the admissibility of evidence seized during Mr. Anderson’s arrest, as well as the constitutionality of the statute under which Mr. Anderson is charged in the Indictment. DISCUSSION Motion to Suppress To defeat a suppression motion, the Government must establish that the challenged search was constitutional, “by a preponderance of the evidence.” United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164, 177 n. 14 (1974). Evidentiary hearing “[A]n evidentiary hearing on a motion to suppress ordinarily is required if the moving papers are sufficiently definite, specific, detailed, and nonconjectural to enable the court to conclude that contested issues of fact going to the validity of the search are in question.” United States v. Pena, 961 F.2d 333, 339 (2d Cir. 1992) (internal citation omitted). Still, “without specification of the factual basis” that supports suppression, “the district court is not required to have a hearing.” United States v. Mathurin, 148 F.3d 68, 69 (2d Cir. 1998); see also United States v. Viscioso, 711 F. Supp. 740, 745 (S.D.N.Y. 1989) (“A hearing is not required if the defendant’s statements are general, conclusory or based on conjecture.”). A defendant “bears the initial burden of establishing, by an affidavit of someone with personal knowledge of the underlying facts, that there are, in fact, disputed issues of material facts.” United States v. Dixon, No. 20-CR-368-NSR, 2021 WL 106419, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 12, 2021) (citation omitted). In his Reply Memorandum, the Defendant asserts that an evidentiary hearing is required as to five contested facts. (Docket entry no. 24 (“Def. Reply”) at 6-7.) Of the contested facts identified, only two are material to the Court’s analysis — “whether the officers were able to make any sort of credible observation about the contents of Mr. Anderson’s bag, at night, from a significant distance, in a matter of seconds,” and “whether the officers could have reasonably believed that Mr. Anderson recognized them as police, particularly because the first two officers in pursuit were wearing NST uniforms.”2 (Id. at 6.) The Defense has failed, however, to proffer any specific factual basis in the affidavit of Kwame Anderson to show that these facts are genuinely in dispute. Both identified issues require the Court to draw reasonable conclusions from its analysis of the facts and circumstances present at the time the Officers observed Mr. Anderson and approached him, as shown by the evidence of record. Mr. Anderson’s brief declaration asserts, in material part, that he was standing against a wall outside of his building displaying no weapon or contraband, that there was a car parked between him and the driving lane, and that he did not recognize the Officers as police. (Anderson Decl.
