United States v. Toirov, 2:25-mj-01320

Komiljon Toirov was charged by the United States with three misdemeanors: Entry Without Inspection under 8 U.S.C. § 1325, Violation of a Security Regulation under 50 U.S.C. § 797, and Entering Military Property for an Unlawful Purpose under 18 U.S.C. § 1382.
The charges stem from allegations that Toirov illegally entered the United States and, in doing so, also entered restricted military property (the NM National Defense Area adjacent to the border).
The Criminal Complaint must establish probable cause for each of the charges; the court reviewed the facts under Rule 4.
For the two “military trespass” charges (under 50 U.S.C. § 797 and 18 U.S.C. § 1382), the complaint's allegations centered on the presence of posted signs and Toirov’s alleged intent.
The central question was whether Toirov had the necessary knowledge or intent to satisfy the mental state (mens rea) elements of these offenses, particularly whether he knew he was entering restricted military property.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Mens rea for 50 U.S.C. § 797 (Security Regulation violation)	Knowledge of any unlawful conduct suffices, even if defendant did not know of the specific regulation or property status.	Willfulness requires knowledge of the specific regulation and purpose to violate it.	Govt must show knowledge of unlawful conduct AND knowledge of entering NMNDA; complaint does not establish this.
Mens rea for 18 U.S.C. § 1382 (Entering Military Property for Unlawful Purpose)	Knowing intent need only apply to the unlawful purpose (intent to unlawfully enter the U.S. suffices).	Defendant must know both that he is entering military property and that he is prohibited from entry.	Complaint fails to show defendant knew he was entering military property; charge dismissed.
Sufficiency of Complaint's Factual Allegations	Signs were posted in the area, so knowledge should be inferred.	No evidence defendant saw or understood signs; no allegations establish knowledge.	No probable cause that defendant saw or understood signage—insufficient factual basis for knowledge.
Authority of Court to Order Briefing/Review	The court's sua sponte briefing order was improper.	The court has authority and obligation to review probable cause and seek briefing.	Court affirms its obligation to conduct review and invite briefing as necessary.

Atwater v. City of Lago Vista, 532 U.S. 318 (review of probable cause required for arrests without formal process)
Bryan v. United States, 524 U.S. 184 ("willfully" in criminal statutes requires knowledge that conduct is unlawful, not knowledge of the specific law violated)
Rehaif v. United States, 588 U.S. 225 (presumption that scienter applies to every element of a criminal statute that criminalizes otherwise innocent conduct)
United States v. Wyatt, 964 F.3d 947 ("willfulness" jury instructions require only knowledge of unlawfulness)
United States v. Allen, 924 F.2d 29 (18 U.S.C. § 1382 unlawful purpose can be met by purpose unrelated to entry itself)
United States v. Parrilla Bonilla, 648 F.2d 1373 (entry itself can provide unlawful purpose under § 1382, but knowledge of entry required)