United States v. Mata-De La Torre, 2:25-cr-01440

Defendant Victor Manuel Mata-De La Torre was charged with three misdemeanors after being apprehended for crossing the U.S.-Mexico border in the New Mexico National Defense Area (NMNDA): 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 federal public defender moved to dismiss the two charges based on 50 U.S.C. § 797 and 18 U.S.C. § 1382.
The court undertook a probable cause review, as required, to assess the sufficiency of the government's complaint.
The factual allegations in the complaint did not assert that the defendant knew he was entering a particular military property, a key element for both dismissed charges.
The court analyzed whether the statutes in question required knowledge of entering restricted property and whether the government had alleged this element.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does 50 U.S.C. § 797 require that defendant know they are entering restricted military property?	Knowledge of unlawfulness (such as illegal entry into the U.S.) is sufficient to satisfy the willfulness requirement.	Willfulness under § 797 requires knowledge of the regulation and defiance for a nefarious purpose.	Dismissed; Government must allege defendant knew they were entering NMNDA.
Does 18 U.S.C. § 1382 require knowledge of entry onto military property?	Only the specific intent for the unlawful purpose is necessary; knowledge of entry is not required for all cases.	Knowledge of entry onto military property is required, or else risk criminalizing innocent conduct.	Dismissed; Government must allege knowledge of entering military property.
Does intent to enter the U.S. unlawfully satisfy willfulness for trespass of military property?	Yes, as both are forms of unlawful entry.	No, willfulness must be tied to knowledge of and intent toward the specific military regulation or property.	Court agrees with plaintiff only if knowledge of entry is also established; here, it was not.
Was the court’s sua sponte briefing order improper?	Improper without party request.	Proper for probable cause review; court’s obligation.	Court properly undertook briefing and review.

Bryan v. United States, 524 U.S. 184 (Supreme Court clarified "willfulness" as knowledge that conduct is unlawful, not necessarily of the specific law/regulation.)
Atwater v. City of Lago Vista, 532 U.S. 318 (Probable cause review is constitutionally required after arrest.)
Rehaif v. United States, 588 U.S. 225 (Presumption that knowledge of elements of a crime must be established by prosecution.)
United States v. Parrilla Bonilla, 648 F.2d 1373 (Appellate clarification on intent and knowledge requirements for unauthorized entry of military property.)
United States v. Apel, 571 U.S. 359 (Public roads and knowledge of military property boundaries can affect criminal liability.)