## Facts

- The U.S. Navy operated Camp García on Vieques, Puerto Rico, and periodically conducted military training, including use of a live impact area.
- Camp García was designated a closed base; civilian entry required permission from the commanding officer under Navy regulations.
- Protests against Navy activities on Vieques led to numerous protest-related trespass prosecutions.
- Raúl Maxwell-Anthony entered Camp García without authorization and was arrested three times in June 2000; the appealed conviction arose from the June 13, 2000 incident.
- On June 13, Maxwell peacefully entered inside the base’s north fence line, approached a naval security officer, identified himself as a protester, and asked for water.
- The government charged Maxwell by information with violating 18 U.S.C. § 1382 for going upon a naval installation for a purpose prohibited by law or lawful regulation.
- After a bench trial, the district court rejected Maxwell’s necessity defense, found him guilty, and sentenced him to 30 days’ imprisonment for a Class B misdemeanor.

## Issues

1. Whether Maxwell established the common-law necessity defense to a trespass prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 1382.
2. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove a § 1382 violation, including that entry was prohibited by lawful regulation and that Maxwell had adequate notice.
3. Whether moral or political opposition to the Navy’s activities could negate criminal liability under § 1382.

## Decision

- The First Circuit affirmed the conviction and sentence.
- The court held the government’s evidence was sufficient to prove unauthorized entry onto a closed naval installation in violation of lawful access regulations.
- The court held Maxwell had adequate notice that entry without permission was prohibited.
- The court held Maxwell failed to satisfy the necessity defense because the alleged harm was not imminent, legal alternatives existed, and the trespass lacked a direct causal connection to preventing the asserted harm.

## Legal Principles

- 18 U.S.C. § 1382 is satisfied where a defendant enters a military installation for a purpose prohibited by lawful regulation, including a regulation requiring authorization for civilian entry onto a closed base.
- Properly promulgated and published military access regulations can qualify as “lawful regulation” for § 1382 and may support a finding that the defendant had reason to know entry was forbidden.
- The common-law necessity defense is narrow and generally requires: (1) avoidance of a significant harm, (2) imminence, (3) a direct causal relationship between the unlawful act and prevention of harm, and (4) no reasonable legal alternative.
- Political or moral disagreement with government policy does not, without the required elements, establish necessity or otherwise excuse trespass onto a military installation.

## Conclusion

The First Circuit upheld Maxwell’s § 1382 conviction for entering a closed naval base without authorization, concluding that the access restrictions were lawful and sufficiently known to him and that his protest-based necessity defense failed because the asserted harms were not imminent, lawful alternatives were available, and the trespass could not directly avert the claimed harm.


United States v. Maxwell, 254 F.3d 21 (1st Cir. 2001)