United States v. Carrillo-Lopez, 2:25-cr-01445

Defendant Juan Carillo-Lopez 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 alleged conduct involved crossing into the United States through an area within the New Mexico National Defense Area (NMNDA), adjacent to the U.S.-Mexico border.
NMNDA is military-controlled, with regulations prohibiting unauthorized entry, and is marked with signage, though its terrain is vast and signage may not be readily visible everywhere.
The initial appearance was held promptly; the Federal Public Defender orally moved to dismiss two of the charges (the military trespass statutes).
The Court's review focused on whether the complaint established probable cause for the military trespass charges, scrutinizing the mens rea (state of mind) required for these offenses.
The U.S. argued for a broad application of the willfulness and intent elements, while the defense argued for stricter knowledge requirements about entry and restrictions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Mens rea for 50 U.S.C. § 797	Knowledge of unlawfulness is sufficient, even if unaware of specific regulation	Must know of and willfully violate specific security regulation	Willful violation requires knowledge of unlawfulness and knowledge of facts constituting the offense, including being in NMNDA
Willfulness for military trespass (relation to unlawful entry under 8 U.S.C. § 1325)	Knowledge of unlawful border entry suffices for military trespass willfulness	Illegal entry intent under § 1325 does not transfer to military trespass	Court finds knowledge of unlawful conduct under § 1325 is related, but knowledge of being on military property is still required
Knowledge element under 18 U.S.C. § 1382	Only intent for illegal purpose required, not knowledge of entering military property	Must know entry is onto military property; otherwise, no culpable conduct	Court holds knowledge of entry onto military property is required for both categories of § 1382 offenses
Sufficiency of complaint allegations	Posting of signs in NMNDA and illegal border crossing are enough to infer knowledge	No facts alleged to show defendant knew entry was into NMNDA	Facts do not establish probable cause that defendant knew of entry into NMNDA; charges dismissed

Bryan v. United States, 524 U.S. 184 (1998) (defined criminal willfulness as knowledge that conduct is unlawful, not requiring specific knowledge of the law itself)
Atwater v. City of Lago Vista, 532 U.S. 318 (2001) (addressed magistrate review of probable cause)
Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192 (1991) (exception to standard ignorance-of-law rule for highly technical statutes)
Ratzlaf v. United States, 510 U.S. 135 (1994) (similar exception for complexity in criminal statutes)
Rehaif v. United States, 588 U.S. 225 (2019) (presumption that Congress requires mental state regarding material elements of an offense)
United States v. Allen, 924 F.2d 29 (2d Cir. 1991) (addressed purposes in entering military reservation)
United States v. Parrilla Bonilla, 648 F.2d 1373 (1st Cir. 1981) (unlawful purpose under § 1382 can be unauthorized entry itself)
United States v. Apel, 571 U.S. 359 (2014) (public roads through military property)
United States v. Floyd, 477 F.2d 217 (10th Cir. 1973) (intent and knowledge requirements for military property entry)