SCOTUS: Identity Theft Must Be Intentional to Be Illegal

[meegbear]

The Supreme Court on Monday ruled unanimously that to convict an individual for identity theft, the defendant must have known that he was using the identity of an existing person.

The case arose, at such cases usually do, in the context of an undocumented worker, Ignacio Flores-Figueroa, who submitted false documents to an employer to get a job. After his employer reported him, the government discovered that the social security number was real, only it was somebody else’s. The government charged Flores-Figheroa with entering the United States illegally, misusing immigration documents, and identity theft.

He was convicted, and Flores-Figheroa appealed the identity theft charge, claiming he didn’t know the number he had belonged to anybody at all. The court upheld the conviction anyway.

Today, the Supreme Court reversed, holding that law, which requires that the offender "knowingly transfers, possesses, or uses, without lawful authority, a means of identification of another person" means exactly that — that the offender must know that he did it.

The full opinion is here.


http://washingtonindependent.com/41768/scotus-identity-theft-must-be-intentional-to-be-illegal#more-41768

[Vickers]

1. "he didn’t know the number he had belonged to anybody at all"

Dude, it doesn't belong to YOU.

:wtf:

[Triana]

3. EXACTLY - he knew it wasn't HIS - and that is enough

to constitute FRAUD and identity theft.

[pampango]

12. The guy is still guilty of FRAUD for using fraudulent immigration documents.

He is not innocent of all charges just the ID theft charge. Evidently the way that Bush and the repub congress wrote the law in 2004 meant that one had to knowingly use the identity of another person. Just using ID that the person knows is fake is a different crime - one that the guy in this case was sentenced to 4+ years and deportation for (not counting the ID theft part that has been thrown out).

The SC unanimously decided that creating a fictional identity in order to get a job is not the same things as "aggravated identity theft" since the law in question said one had to "knowing" steal someone's identity to be guilty of the latter.

http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSTRE54343K20090504

"In the high court's opinion, Justice Stephen Breyer said the law required that prosecutors show that the defendant knew the counterfeit identification belonged to another person ."

"Defense lawyers had argued their clients should not be charged with identity theft. They sought the documentation only to allow them to work and did not know if the numbers were fictitious or had actually belonged to someone else.

The ruling is not expected to affect prosecutions of non-immigration identity-theft cases. Defendants who steal Social Security number for financial gain know they are victimizing a real person."

[Vinca]

2. It's a shame the number didn't belong to one of the Supremes.

[tabbycat31]

18. exactly

I just want ONE high-profile politician to become a victim of ID theft (it's happened to me). That will change the legislation.

[alarimer]

4. Good, now maybe they can go after the REAL criminals, the employers.

Lock a few of those assholes up and confiscate everything they own, rather than penalizing some poor guy who only wants a better life.

[Political Heretic]

5. You guys (above me) are on the wrong side of this.

Bush was interpreting this law to prosecute immigrants and jail them rather than deport them. This was not only completely not what the law was intended to do, it was also a inaccurate reading/interpretation of the statute. Essentially, you can use that law to do what Bush was doing.

It's another example of Bush trying to be above the law and I'm glad the court said that basically Bush's approach to immigration was so extreme even a conservative SC won't back it.

[FreakinDJ]

7. Since when did the USA deport illegals

While I agree with the jest of your opinion towards prosecution of employers, I certainly do not agree with the decision of SCOTUS. If you are not a citizen or LEGAL immigrant you DO NOT have a social Security Number .... There fore the perp INTENDED to Defraud when he presented the false SSN .... END of SUBJECT

This basically is an insult to the many Americans who have had their identy stolen

[t0dd]

8. Oh..

But it makes complete sense to imprison an illegal immigrant that used a false social security number out of desperation to secure employment? and waste taxpayer money by imprisoning him for two years? Another reason why this was a good decision is the unfairness of it. If an illegal immigrant chose a random social security number that did not belong to anyone, he would not violate the statute; however, an unfortunate immigrant that chose a number belonging to a real person would receive an extra two years to his sentence.

[FreakinDJ]

15. Out - of Desperation he Robbed a Liquor Store

Oh but it makes complete sense to let him walk Free

Sorry I failed the simpathy

20% of ALL Healthcare Cost in California goes to uninsured illegal immagrents. Who is Robbing Who

[Gman]

10. I've no doubt that the illegal had no clue what that number was for

he was probably told, "Here, use this number." and he did while not knowing what it was for. As stated above by Heretic, it's a good decision because the prosecution used a law in a way in which it was never intended to be used.

[EFerrari]

11. You're missing the point. He didn't know he was harming another person.

He may have thought the owner of that number was deceased, for example. That's a pretty common practice. That was the issue in this case.

[TahitiNut]

17. He may not have known but whomever provided the SS account number probably knew.

This is a case where those who facilitate falsification of identity documents should be prosecuted as well. These fraudulent documents are typically based on stolen personal data.

[Political Heretic]

14. That's a DIFFERENT LAW THEN. They can't be prosecuted under THAT statute.

That's the point.

The statute as written, can't be used to prosecute an illegal immigrant anymore than I can be charged with theft for jaywalking.

You're confusing your "principled" stance against fraud committed by immigrants with understanding of the law in this case. By all means have the legislature pass a stature under which they can be prosecuted if that's what you want. But it can't be this one, at least not as written.


From below:
Here’s how Justice Samuel Alito – no flaming liberal – explained the problem with the contrary position, which Dobbs apparently supports:

Under that interpretation, if a defendant uses a made-up Social Security number without having any reason to know whether it belongs to a real person, the defendant’s liability under §1028A(a)(1) depends on chance: If it turns out that the number belongs to a real person, two years will be added to the defendant’s sentence, but if the defendant is lucky and the number does not belong to another person, the statute is not violated."

[FreakinDJ]

16. I would settle for plain deportation

If you from an Asian country and your caught here illegally they make no bones about seeing to it your on the next plain at your own expense. Mexican illegals however are provided a Free Pass or Free Bus Ride back to the boarder.

More often then not a Free Pass

[Kansas Wyatt]

6. SCOTUS putting it's stamp of approval on Corporate America....

Employing illegal workers.

[pampango]

9. Lou agrees with you.

Lou Dobbs Smarter Than SCOTUS Conservatives — Or He Just Doesn’t Understand the Law

http://washingtonindependent.com/41804/lou-dobbs-smarte...

"Well, CNN anchor Lou Dobbs is indignant .

“Do you feel better knowing that it’s legal for an illegal alien to steal your identity if he or she doesn’t know it’s yours?” he asked his audience Monday night."

"Here’s how Justice Samuel Alito – no flaming liberal – explained the problem with the contrary position, which Dobbs apparently supports:

Under that interpretation, if a defendant uses a made-up Social Security number without having any reason to know whether it belongs to a real person, the defendant’s liability under §1028A(a)(1) depends on chance: If it turns out that the number belongs to a real person, two years will be added to the defendant’s sentence, but if the defendant is lucky and the number does not belong to another person, the statute is not violated."

My guess is that Rush (and freepers and the rest of the RW talking heads) will be equally indignant later today. How can "illegals" have rights? The government should have the ability to arrest them and charge them with any crime they want.

I didn't know this SC ever made unanimous decisions on anything. The fact that there was unanimity on this case tells me that the government (Bush and the repub-controlled Congress) went way overboard in 2004 with the "aggravated identity theft" law. Why should it surprise anyone that they would play the "anti-immigrant" hysteria card in 2004, a presidential election year?

[Kansas Wyatt]

13. You're right, circular logic on controlling illegal immigration causes more problems.

Now that you've stepped up to support your Chic Special Interest, I have absolutely NO problem with and would laugh my ass off if:

Any group opposing illegal immigration were to mine all the identities and Social Security numbers of those who push illegal immigration, to set up "free identity" stands at the border, and leave all the identities and Social Security numbers of those pushing illegal immigration at the stands for illegals coming to America. Gee, I don't think those groups would read this.

:rofl: Don't blame the illegal, blame the SCOTUS!


The very simple fact is that the SCOTUS just told all of Americans that it is okay for illegals to use their identities, as long as they don't know them. Illegals know damn well that Social Security numbers are assigned to REAL people, and illegals are NOT verifying that they are using "fictitious" identities. The SCOTUS just told every American Citizen that it is perfectly fine for Corporate America to continue using illegal workers.