United States v. Bustos-Carranza, 2:25-cr-01443

Jose Alfredo Bustos-Carranza was charged with three misdemeanors: Entry Without Inspection (8 U.S.C. § 1325), Violation of a Security Regulation (50 U.S.C. § 797), and Entering Military Property for an Unlawful Purpose (18 U.S.C. § 1382), based on alleged illegal entry into the U.S. via military property along the border.
The charges arise from allegations of illegal border crossing into a National Defense Area (NMNDA) associated with Fort Huachuca, where military security regulations were in place.
A probable cause review was conducted, as required for warrantless arrests, following the initial appearance and representation by the Federal Public Defender.
The defense moved to dismiss the Title 50 and Title 18 charges, challenging whether the government alleged sufficient facts to support the mental state and knowledge elements required by those statutes.
The facts alleged in the complaint did not establish that Defendant knew he was entering military property or a restricted area, nor did they address key issues about the visibility and sufficiency of posted signs.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Definition of "willfully" under 50 U.S.C. § 797	Knowledge that the conduct was unlawful suffices (no need to know reg).	Defendant must know of the specific regulation and act in defiance of it for a nefarious purpose.	Government must show knowledge of unlawfulness, not knowledge of the specific reg.
Requirement of knowledge of entry (50 U.S.C. § 797)	Entry into NMNDA is sufficient if entry was unauthorized or unlawful.	Must show defendant knew he was entering the NMNDA (i.e. knowingly trespassed military property).	Probable cause lacking; no facts show defendant knew he was entering NMNDA.
Mental state for "goes upon" (18 U.S.C. § 1382)	Specific intent for unlawful purpose suffices, independent of knowledge.	Must prove defendant knowingly went onto military property (not just intent for unlawful purpose).	Statute requires knowing entry onto military property; facts insufficient here.
Probable cause on essential mens rea elements	Factual allegations suffice due to overall context and signage.	Government failed to allege facts establishing defendant's knowledge of entering military property.	No probable cause on knowledge elements; charges dismissed without prejudice.

Bryan v. United States, 524 U.S. 184 (willfulness in criminal statutes means knowledge that conduct is unlawful, not necessarily knowledge of the specific law)
Atwater v. City of Lago Vista, 532 U.S. 318 (magistrate review of probable cause required for warrantless arrest)
Rehaif v. United States, 588 U.S. 225 (mens rea usually applies to each element of a criminal statute)
United States v. Spies, 317 U.S. 492 (willfulness requires acting with bad purpose or knowledge that conduct is unlawful)
United States v. Parrilla Bonilla, 648 F.2d 1373 (entry onto military property can be criminal if done for an unlawful purpose)
United States v. Floyd, 477 F.2d 217 (knowledge of prohibited status and intentional entry are required for conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 1382)