United States v. Rodriguez-Ramos
2:25-cr-01437
D.N.M.May 14, 2025Background
- Defendant Carlos Esteban Rodriguez-Ramos 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 case arose from the defendant's alleged unauthorized entry into the NM National Defense Area (NMNDA), contiguous with the US-Mexico border, created out of the Roosevelt Reservation.
- The factual allegations for the § 797 and § 1382 charges focused on trespass into military-controlled land with security restrictions.
- The Federal Public Defender (FPD) moved to dismiss the § 797 and § 1382 charges for lack of probable cause at an initial appearance.
- The court had a duty to independently review probable cause for warrantless arrests and did so here.
- The court ultimately concluded the complaint failed to establish probable cause for both the § 797 and § 1382 charges due to insufficient allegations of the defendant’s knowledge of entry onto restricted military property.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Probable cause for § 797 (security regulation violation) | Defendant’s illegal entry into the US suffices to show knowledge of unlawfulness; defendant need not know details of the property’s status. | Willfulness under § 797 requires specific knowledge of, and defiance toward, the security regulation at issue. | Dismissed: Probable cause not shown that defendant knew he was in NMNDA; actual knowledge of entering NMNDA required. |
| Mens rea/willfulness for § 797 | Knowledge of any illegality is enough; intent to violate the explicit regulation not required. | Willfulness must be directed at the military security regulation itself. | Court: Only need knowledge that conduct is unlawful, but also requires knowledge of the essential act (entering NMNDA). |
| Probable cause for § 1382 (entering military property for unlawful purpose) | Entry for the purpose of illegal entry into the US suffices as the unlawful purpose under § 1382; additional scienter not required. | Defendant must have knowledge of entering military property and the unlawful purpose; must actually know property is restricted military land. | Dismissed: Complaint fails to allege facts showing defendant knew he was on military property (NMNDA). |
| Mens rea for "goes upon" element in § 1382 | No extra scienter needed if unlawful purpose established. | Knowledge of entry onto military property required, or risk criminalizing innocent conduct. | Knowledge of entry required; presumption of scienter applies to act element. |
Key Cases Cited
- Atwater v. City of Lago Vista, 532 U.S. 318 (magistrate’s review of probable cause for arrests is mandatory)
- Bryan v. United States, 524 U.S. 184 (defines "willfully" in criminal statutes as knowledge conduct is unlawful)
- Rehaif v. United States, 588 U.S. 225 (presumption that scienter required for each non-jurisdictional element of criminal statutes)
- Spies v. United States, 317 U.S. 492 (ignorance of law is generally not a defense; explains willfulness)
- United States v. Wyatt, 964 F.3d 947 (jury instruction on willfulness upheld)
- United States v. Robertson, 709 F.3d 741 (reiterates knowledge of unlawfulness for "willful" violations)
- United States v. Parrilla Bonilla, 648 F.2d 1373 (interprets intent and knowledge requirements for § 1382)
- United States v. Floyd, 477 F.2d 217 (knowledge of both entry and prohibition needed for military trespass)