United States v. Moreno-Portillo
2:25-cr-01447
D.N.M.May 14, 2025Background
- The United States charged Enrique Moreno-Portillo 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 arose from Moreno-Portillo's alleged unauthorized crossing of the border into the New Mexico National Defense Area (NMNDA), connected to Fort Huachuca.
- Defense counsel moved to dismiss the charges under Titles 50 and 18 at the initial appearance, prompting the court’s independent probable cause review.
- The court determined probable cause existed for the § 1325 charge but not for the two "military trespass" charges.
- The factual allegations in the complaints were almost identical to those in hundreds of similar cases pending in the district.
- The court focused its analysis on the mens rea (knowledge/willfulness) requirements under §§ 797 and 1382 and the sufficiency of the complaint’s factual allegations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mens rea for 50 U.S.C. § 797 | Knowledge of unlawful conduct is sufficient; no need to know regulation | Must know the regulation & act in defiance of it knowingly | Knowledge of unlawfulness is enough, but must also know entry was into NMNDA. |
| Sufficiency of Complaint: Knowledge of Entry | Entry into NMNDA can be inferred from illegal crossing, signs posted | No facts show defendant knew they entered NMNDA; signage not described | Complaint failed to show probable cause that defendant knew entry was into NMNDA. |
| Mens rea for 18 U.S.C. § 1382 | Only specific intent for unlawful purpose needed for first category cases | Knowledge of property boundary required for fair imposition of penalty | Statute requires knowledge of entry onto military property, not just presence. |
| Sufficiency of Complaint under § 1382 | Complaint facts sufficient based on intent to illegally enter U.S. | Complaint fails because no evidence of knowledge of military property | Probable cause lacking on knowledge-of-entry element; charge dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bryan v. United States, 524 U.S. 184 (1998) ("willfulness" in criminal statutes means knowledge of unlawful conduct; ignorance of law is generally no excuse)
- Rehaif v. United States, 588 U.S. 225 (2019) (scienter [knowledge] requirements apply to each element that criminalizes otherwise innocent conduct)
- Atwater v. City of Lago Vista, 532 U.S. 318 (2001) (probable cause review is required after a warrantless arrest)
- United States v. Parrilla Bonilla, 648 F.2d 1373 (1st Cir. 1981) (discussing 18 U.S.C. § 1382 scienter and notice requirements)
- United States v. Floyd, 477 F.2d 217 (10th Cir. 1973) (factors relevant for 18 U.S.C. § 1382 convictions including knowledge of entry and prohibition)