United States v. Calvo-Rodriguez
2:25-cr-01444
D.N.M.May 14, 2025Background
- Defendant Anselmo Calvo-Rodriguez 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).
- The charges stemmed from alleged unauthorized entry into the New Mexico National Defense Area (NMNDA), a restricted military zone along the U.S.-Mexico border.
- The Federal Public Defender moved orally to dismiss the military trespass charges (the Title 50 and Title 18 offenses).
- The Court conducted a probable cause review as required for warrantless arrests, focusing on whether the facts alleged in the criminal complaint established each element of the crimes charged.
- The key factual dispute centered around whether Calvo-Rodriguez knew he was entering restricted military property and whether willfulness or knowledge of the security regulation was required.
- The Court ultimately found a lack of probable cause for the two military-related charges and dismissed them without prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mens rea under 50 U.S.C. § 797 | Entry into NMNDA concurrently with illegal U.S. entry shows knowledge of unlawfulness | Willful violation requires specific knowledge of the security regulation and purposeful defiance | "Willfulness" does not require knowledge of the regulation, but knowledge that conduct is unlawful; no probable cause defendant knew he was on NMNDA |
| Application of scienter to elements of 50 U.S.C. § 797 | Proof of illegal entry is enough to show willful entry | Mens rea must apply to entry and knowledge of restricted area | Mens rea applies to knowing entry; lacking facts showing knowledge of being on NMNDA, charge dismissed |
| 18 U.S.C. § 1382 knowledge requirement | Only need unlawful purpose, not knowledge of entering military reservation | Defendant must know they're entering military property | Statute requires knowledge of entry on military property; complaint does not establish this knowledge |
| Sufficiency of factual allegations | Complaint relied on general facts about posted signs and area | Defendant claimed lack of evidence he saw/did see signage | Insufficient facts alleged to infer knowledge of entering restricted area; both charges dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Atwater v. City of Lago Vista, 532 U.S. 318 (arrest without probable cause review requires prompt judicial evaluation)
- Bryan v. United States, 524 U.S. 184 (defines 'willfulness' as knowledge that conduct is unlawful, not necessarily knowledge of specific legal prohibition)
- Spies v. United States, 317 U.S. 492 (addresses the willfulness requirement in criminal law)
- Rehaif v. United States, 588 U.S. 225 (presumption of scienter applies to all non-jurisdictional elements)
- United States v. Wyatt, 964 F.3d 947 (reinforces jury instruction that willfulness requires knowledge of unlawfulness)
- United States v. Apel, 571 U.S. 359 (discusses how public roads interact with military property boundaries)
- United States v. Floyd, 477 F.2d 217 (knowledge of prohibited entry required under 18 U.S.C. § 1382)