United States v. Cordova-Almaraz, 2:25-cr-01446

Alonso Cordova-Almaraz was charged via criminal complaint with (1) entry without inspection (8 U.S.C. § 1325), (2) violation of a security regulation (50 U.S.C. § 797), and (3) entering military property for an unlawful purpose (18 U.S.C. § 1382).
The court conducted an initial appearance, with representation from the Federal Public Defender, at which counsel orally moved to dismiss the Title 50 and 18 charges.
The alleged conduct occurred on the NM National Defense Area (NMNDA), a military zone along the U.S.-Mexico border, with the defendant accused of unauthorized entry.
The court reviewed the probable cause for each charge as required by law for warrantless arrests; the complaint’s factual allegations were viewed in light of recent coordinated prosecutions under these statutes.
The government and defense argued over the required mens rea (knowledge/intent) for the military trespass offenses, especially regarding whether the defendant knew he entered restricted military property.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
What mens rea (mental state) is required under 50 U.S.C. §797?	Only knowledge that conduct was unlawful is required.	Must know of and act in defiance of the specific regulation for a nefarious purpose.	Knowledge of unlawfulness suffices, but must also know entry was into NMNDA.
Does the complaint establish probable cause for §797?	Knowledge of illegal border crossing is sufficient to infer willfulness.	No evidence defendant knew he was on NMNDA—posting of signs insufficiently alleged in complaint.	Lacks probable cause—no facts show defendant knew they entered NMNDA.
What mental state is required for 18 U.S.C. §1382?	Intentional entry for unlawful purpose (here, illegal entry to U.S.) is sufficient.	"Goes upon" must require knowledge of entry onto military property; otherwise, criminalizes innocent conduct.	Knowledge of entering military property is required.
Does complaint establish probable cause for §1382?	Entry for illegal border crossing suffices for probable cause.	No basis to infer knowledge or intent to enter military property in the complaint.	Lacks probable cause—no evidence defendant knowingly entered NMNDA.

Atwater v. City of Lago Vista, 532 U.S. 318 (set standard for probable cause review by magistrates)
Bryan v. United States, 524 U.S. 184 (discusses willfulness and knowledge requirements for criminal statutes)
Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192 (explains exceptions to ignorance of the law)
Ratzlaf v. United States, 510 U.S. 135 (knowledge requirements for technical statutes)
United States v. Wyatt, 964 F.3d 947 (upholds jury instruction on willfulness as knowledge of unlawfulness)
United States v. Robertson, 709 F.3d 741 (knowledge that conduct is unlawful suffices for willfulness)
United States v. Apel, 571 U.S. 359 (military boundary context)
United States v. Floyd, 477 F.2d 217 (knowledge of entry and prohibition under §1382)
United States v. Cottier, 759 F.2d 760 (knowledge and intent under §1382)
United States v. Hall, 742 F.2d 1153 (knowledge requirement for entry onto military property)
United States v. Parrilla Bonilla, 648 F.2d 1373 (unlawful entry on military property)
Rehaif v. United States, 588 U.S. 225 (presumption of knowledge requirements for all statute elements except jurisdictional ones)