The opinion of the court was delivered by: Platt, District Judge
Defendant Sanford Edmonston ("Edmonston" or "Defendant") moves this Court to suppress statements made to authorities during the search of the premises of Astra Motors, Inc. ("Astra Motors" or "Astra") on June 17, 2003. For the following reasons, Defendant's motion to suppress is DENIED.
As an initial matter, it should be noted that law enforcement officials questioned the Defendant on three occasions on June 17, 2003.
1. At approximately 11:00 a.m. Investigator ("Inv.") Michael Mulcahy, the Assistant Director of the Division of Field Investigation for the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles ("NYSDMV"), asked the Defendant three questions while he (Mulcahy) and Detective ("Det.") Robert Petro of the Suffolk County Police Department ("SCPD") searched the Defendant's office. Det. Petro then orally advised Edmonston of his Miranda rights. (Gov. Opp. Def.'s Mot. Suppress at 3-5).
2. At approximately 12:00 p.m., SCPD Detective Hansen and Sargent Gozloff interviewed Edmonston in his office (Id. at 5.)
3. At approximately 1:00 p.m., Edmonston was placed under arrest, and made statements to SCPD Detective Lawrence Conde while being transportedto a Suffolk County Police Precinct. (Id.)
The Government only seeks to introduce statements Edmonston made during his first discussion with law enforcement (Def.'s Letter, February 21, 2006 at 1.) Thus, the interviews at 12:00 p.m. and 1:00 p.m. will not be addressed in this Memorandum and Order.
On June 17, 2003, approximately fifty (50) law enforcement officials from various local, state, and federal agencies conducted a search of Astra Motors pursuant to a duly issued and executed search warrant.*fn1 (Gov Opp. Def.'s Mot. Suppress at 2.) Initially though, only two officers entered the premises: Inv. Mulcahy and Det. William O'Hearn of the SCPD. The two officers saw Edmonston upon entering the building and informed him that they had a warrant to search the premises.
Subsequently, the search team entered the building. One member of the team told the Astra employees to remain where they were until the building was secured. About this time, Det. Petro entered the first floor area and introduced himself to Edmonston. He then asked Edmonston to open any safes in the building. Edmonston agreed and directed Det. Petro to an adjoining office, which he shared with Michael Pescatore. Edmonston then opened the safe and counted the money inside. (Transcript of hearing ("Tr.") 04-774, February 10, 2006 at 11-12.)
Shortly thereafter, Inv. Mulcahy entered the office and began searching through Edmonston's desk. Inv. Mulcahy found a document bearing the name "Phil Edmonston." Mulcahy recognized the name from a prior investigation and knew it was Edmonston's alias. (Tr. at 12-13.) He asked rhetorically "who is Phil Edmonston?" and the Defendant replied "it is not what you think." Edmonston then explained that he had a criminal record and used the name Phil to prevent the police from bothering or harassing him. (Tr. at 13.)
Inv. Mulcahy went back to searching through the desk drawers. A short time later, he asked Edmonston whether he knew Gerard Lane, a person who was deceased, but whose name Astra Motors allegedly used to generate fraudulent paperwork. (Id.) Edmonston replied that he knew Lane. Inv. Mulcahy continued his search and came across a white cloth bag that contained a public Vehicle Identification Number ("VIN") and a confidential VIN, which he knew it was illegal to possess. He then asked rhetorically "well, what are these?" The Defendant replied that they came off a wrecked car that Astra bought, and that he was just messing around with them. (Tr. at 14, 36.)
Edmonston was never physically restrained during the search. Law enforcement officials never searched his person or displayed their weapons. (Tr. at 16.) Moreover, Inv. Mulcahy and Det. Petro did not prevent Edmonston from moving. In fact, Edmonston was standing while Inv. Mulcahy was sitting. (Tr. at 34.)
Inv. Mulcahy testified that he did not hear Edmonston request an attorney. (Tr. at 31.) This is not inconsistent with Edmonston's affidavit. While the Defendant states that he repeatedly requested a lawyer, he ...