United States v. Villavicencio-Lopez
2:25-cr-01439
D.N.M.May 14, 2025Background
- The United States charged Leodora Villavicencio-Lopez 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 related to Villavicencio-Lopez’s alleged entry into the New Mexico National Defense Area (NMNDA), a military zone along the U.S.-Mexico border, without authorization.
- The court performed a mandatory probable cause review of the charges, as required for any individual arrested on warrantless criminal charges.
- The Federal Public Defender (FPD) moved for dismissal of the Title 50 and 18 charges at the initial appearance, arguing deficiencies in the mens rea allegations.
- The court’s analysis was prompted by routinely identical, factually sparse complaints filed by the government in numerous similar cases.
- Ultimately, the court concluded that the factual allegations in the criminal complaint did not establish probable cause for the Title 50 or Title 18 charges, and ordered their dismissal without prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Willfulness standard under § 797 | Knowledge of illegal entry satisfies willfulness | Willfulness requires knowledge of the specific regulation and purpose | Only knowledge that conduct is unlawful is needed; but gov’t failed to show knowledge of entry into NMNDA |
| Mens rea required under § 797 for entry element | General unlawful intent suffices | Must know entering restricted military property | Gov’t must show knowledge of entering NMNDA; complaint insufficient |
| Mens rea for entry under § 1382 | No need to show defendant knew entering military prop. | Must prove knowledge of entry onto military reservation | Knowledge of entry onto military reservation required; complaint insufficient |
| Unlawful purpose element under § 1382 | Purpose was to violate immigration law | Purpose must relate to knowing violation of base restrictions | Illegal entry satisfies unlawful purpose, but must know entry onto base |
Key Cases Cited
- Atwater v. City of Lago Vista, 532 U.S. 318 (probable cause review needed for warrantless arrests)
- Bryan v. United States, 524 U.S. 184 (willfulness requires knowledge that conduct is unlawful, not knowledge of specific law)
- Spies v. United States, 317 U.S. 492 (clarifies willfulness in criminal statutes)
- United States v. Apel, 571 U.S. 359 (public access and nature of military property)
- Rehaif v. United States, 588 U.S. 225 (presumption that Congress intends knowledge of each statutory element in criminal statutes)
- United States v. Floyd, 477 F.2d 217 (knowledge of both trespass and prohibition needed for conviction under § 1382)
- United States v. Allen, 924 F.2d 29 (relevant to unlawful purpose under § 1382)
- United States v. Parrilla Bonilla, 648 F.2d 1373 (requirement of knowledge in unauthorized entry cases)