United States v. Ventura-Sanchez
2:25-cr-01438
D.N.M.May 14, 2025Background
- Defendant Eloy Ventura-Sanchez was charged via Criminal Complaint 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 defendant was apprehended after allegedly entering the NM National Defense Area (NMNDA) adjacent to the U.S.-Mexico border, which is covered by specific military security regulations and signage.
- Defense counsel moved to dismiss the Title 50 and 18 charges, arguing lack of probable cause.
- The Court conducted a review of probable cause as required for warrantless arrests, which applies to both misdemeanors and felonies.
- The key legal question was whether the facts alleged were sufficient to support those two "military trespass" charges, focusing mainly on the required knowledge/mens rea under each statute.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| What mens rea does § 797 require? | Knowledge of unlawfulness suffices; knowledge of regulation not required. | Must know of regulation and act in defiance for a wrongful purpose. | Govt must show knowledge that conduct was unlawful and knew entered NMNDA (regulation knowledge not necessary, but factual knowledge of entry is). |
| Does entering US illegally supply the intent for military trespass? | Illegal entry (8 U.S.C. § 1325) provides sufficient knowledge of unlawfulness for § 797. | General intent for one crime not enough for willfulness requirement of another. | Knowledge of unlawful entry under § 1325 can support willfulness under § 797, if reasonably related. |
| What level of knowledge is required for § 1382 (Entering Military Property)? | No additional mens rea needed for 'goes upon' element beyond intent to commit unlawful purpose. | Must prove defendant knowingly entered military property. | Intentional, knowing entry onto military property is required for § 1382; scienter applies. |
| Did the complaint sufficiently allege knowledge of entry into NMNDA? | Presence of signs and pattern of conduct are enough to infer knowledge. | Allegations lack facts showing defendant actually knew of entry into NMNDA (size, visibility, lighting). | Complaint did not allege enough facts to support knowledge of entry; charges dismissed for lack of probable cause. |
Key Cases Cited
- Atwater v. City of Lago Vista, 532 U.S. 318 (probable cause review is required for warrantless arrests)
- Bryan v. United States, 524 U.S. 184 ("willfully" requires knowledge that conduct is unlawful, but not necessarily knowledge of the specific law violated)
- Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192 (exception to general rule — willfulness may require knowledge of law for highly technical statutes)
- Ratzlaf v. United States, 510 U.S. 135 (ignorance of law is generally no excuse)
- United States v. Wyatt, 964 F.3d 947 (court endorses "willfulness" instruction as knowledge that conduct is illegal)
- United States v. Robertson, 709 F.3d 741 (government must prove knowledge of unlawful conduct for willfulness)
- Rehaif v. United States, 588 U.S. 225 (presumption that criminal statutes require knowledge of each non-jurisdictional element)
- United States v. Apel, 571 U.S. 359 (military base boundaries and knowledge of entry)
- United States v. Floyd, 477 F.2d 217 (defendant must intend and know entry onto prohibited military property)
- United States v. Hall, 742 F.2d 1153 (knowledge of entry and prohibition required for § 1382)