1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America,

Plaintiff,

v. 

Scott Daniel Warren,

Defendant.

No. 17-00341MJ-001-TUC-RCC

ORDER 

After a bench trial in May of this year, the Court took this matter under 

advisement after the presentation of evidence and arguments by the parties.

The Court decided that based upon the crowds in the courtroom, the extent 

of the press coverage of the case, and the fact that the parties would be before the 

Court the next month in a felony jury trial that it would be advisable to delay its 

verdict until the conclusion of the felony trial so that the instant verdict would have 

no impact on the impaneling of a jury or a jury’s possible verdict in the felony 

case. 

After the presentation of evidence to the Court, it was clear that the 

Government had presented sufficient evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to prove 

the two charges against the Defendant. That being, Count One: Operating a Motor 

Vehicle in a Wilderness Area, 50 C.F.R. § 35.5; and Count Two: Abandonment of 

Property, 50 C.F.R. § 27.93. And, make no mistake about it, the Defendant 

admitted to doing the very acts that the Government charged him with. 

Case 4:17-mj-00341-RCC-JR Document 146 Filed 11/21/19 Page 1 of 3
- 2 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

The Defendant also presented a defense based upon the Religious Freedom 

Restoration Act (“RFRA”), which offers an affirmative defense to defendants 

accused of violating generally applicable federal criminal statutes. 42 U.S.C. § 

2000bb-1(c). To present a successful RFRA defense, a defendant must show that 

(1) he holds a sincerely held religious belief, (2) the conduct for which he is 

charged is an exercise of his religion, and (3) his activities are “substantially 

burdened” by the government. Navajo Nation v. U.S. Forest Service, 535 F.3d 

1058, 1068 (9th Cir. 2008). If a defendant can show these three elements, the 

burden shifts to the government to demonstrate that its action is “the least 

restrictive means” to further a “compelling governmental interest.” Id. 

The Court finds that Defendant’s religious beliefs function as a successful 

affirmative defense against Count Two: Abandonment of Property. While the 

Government has presented sufficient evidence without a reasonable doubt that 

Defendant committed the offense, the Court will acquit him based upon his 

Religious Freedom defense. 

It is not the place of the Court to weigh the sincerity or the validity of the 

Defendant’s religious beliefs. See Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 573 U.S. 

682, 724-25 (2014). Defendant claims his religious beliefs compel him to leave 

water for individuals crossing the desert – i.e. the Growler Valley, which is located 

in the Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge. The Court takes him at his word 

that he sincerely holds these beliefs and will proceed accordingly. Defendant was

obliged to leave water jugs because of his religious beliefs, and the Government’s 

regulation imposes a substantial burden on this exercise of his religion. But 

enforcing the regulation against abandonment of property is not the least restrictive 

means to achieve the Government’s interest in protecting the pristine state of the 

wildlife refuge or in securing the border. 

However, with regards to Count One: Operating a Motor Vehicle in a 

Wilderness Area, the Court comes to a different conclusion. The Defendant knew 

Case 4:17-mj-00341-RCC-JR Document 146 Filed 11/21/19 Page 2 of 3
- 3 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

that he was in a restricted area. He knew because he applied for and received a 

permit stating that he was prohibited from going into that area and because of the 

signs he saw while driving to that area. But Defendant’s religious beliefs did not 

compel him to drive his vehicle into the restricted area. 

The Court finds that the Government has presented sufficient evidence to 

overcome the Defendant’s RFRA defense for Count One. The Court finds that the 

Government’s actions do not substantially burden the Defendant’s religious belief. 

Defendant’s was not forced to enter by vehicle onto restricted land to exercise his 

religion. Defendant fails to meet his original burden under the RFRA defense, 

therefore the Government’s shifting burden of persuasion need not be addressed. 

To that end, the conduct of the Defendant with regards to Count One: Operating a 

Motor Vehicle in a Wilderness Area is against the law and the Court so finds.

Dated this 20th day of November, 2019.

Case 4:17-mj-00341-RCC-JR Document 146 Filed 11/21/19 Page 3 of 3