Posted on 05/04/2009 9:25:52 AM PDT by NormsRevenge
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – An illegal immigrant who uses false identification papers must know they belonged to another person to be convicted of identity theft, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Monday.
The high court's unanimous ruling was a victory for Ignacio Flores-Figueroa, a Mexican illegal immigrant who used false identification to get a job at a steel plant in Illinois.
He was convicted of aggravated identify theft, a law adopted in 2004 that carries a mandatory two-year prison term. The law has been increasingly used by the federal government to charge some of those arrested in raids at work sites that employ illegal immigrants.
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.
The ruling, a defeat for the U.S. Justice Department, resolved conflicting appeals court decisions on the issue, and limits prosecutors' ability to pile identify charges on to illegal immigration cases.
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.
...
Flores-Figueroa, a Mexican citizen employed at the steel plant since 2000, initially worked under an assumed name and false Social Security and immigration registration numbers.
In 2006, he told his employer he wanted to be known by his real name and submitted new identification documents.
But it turned out the new set of numbers belonged to other people and the suspicious employer contacted immigration authorities, who arrested Flores-Figueroa.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
In 2006, he told his employer he wanted to be known by his real name and submitted new identification documents.
But it turned out the new set of numbers belonged to other people and the suspicious employer contacted immigration authorities, who arrested Flores-Figueroa.
unanimous ruling.
Technically right, but cold comfort for those whose identities were stolen. A civil action could certainly be brought on behalf of these people.
So - the guy submitted SS numbers thinking they were his when he’s not a citizen and didn’t have a SS number? These are Clinton appointed judges, right?
So, then logically for me to be convicted of Grand Theft Auto, I have to KNOW that the Porsche I'm about to steal actually belongs to someone else?
Does this legal intrepretation also apply to stereo equipment, plasma TV's, motorcycles, boats, RV's and homes?
And... the traffickers in these stolen IDs can still have the book thrown at them.
Sound fair—he’s still guilty of something, just not identity theft. It would be nice if we had a better option than paying for 51 months of prison for him though.
So if I steal a car, for all I know, it COULD be abandoned, right?
Unfortunately he’s almost certainly judgment-proof.
You mean like Scalia and Roberts?
If someone else stole the Porsche and sold or gave it to you, claiming he bought it, you’d stand to lose the Porsche but you would not be guilty of the theft or even (as defined by law) receiving stolen goods.
No, no. If you buy that Porche for $100, you have to know that the car actually belongs to someone other than the “seller” to be convicted of receiving stolen goods.
All congress has to do to resolve this is to pass a new law penalizing use of ficticious ID. Of course, Obama and ACORN are now in power and won’t allow this.
‘An illegal immigrant who uses false identification papers must know they belonged to another person to be convicted of identity theft, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Monday.’
Using this idiotic reasoning, if I state that I had no knowledge of the posted speed limits then I cannot be convicted of speeding? Or, the money I purloined from the bank belonged to another entity?
God help us from “Stooopieed” Judges!!
The problem for the illegal aliens when they pick up the fake IDs and such is that the "fakes" may be "real", and who knows what the "real" guy is going to do once he finds out.
It's a legitimate risk.
Like imagine what happens to somebody who picks up Joey Buttafucco's ID ~ then he's got Amy Fisher hunting for him.
“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.”
So, does this mean I, a US citizen can now get away with the same thing???? HELL no!
Ping
Does this mean that if someone steals your identity and is recognized legally as you, then if you shoot and kill this imposter, what is the crime? Suicide?
Something like this is happening to Jay Leno. He bought a classic antique at what he knew to be a bargain basement price. The owner’s heirs are upset. No doubt Leno’s lawyers are going to cite this case.
No, that's not what this means, at all. Knowledge of the speed limits is not an element of the crime/violation of speeding, and knowledge of the source of the money stolen from a bank is not an element of the crime of bank robbery. Knowledge is, however, an element of the crime of identity theft - the statute states that an individual is guilty if they "knowingly" obtain, sell, use, etc. the identity of another.
This was not a bad ruling, but rather a clear application of the clear language of the statute. It is ::gasp:: a strict constructionist decision.
HELL yes!
The ONLY thing this decision says is that when the statute requires that an individual "knowingly" does something in order to be convicted of a crime, the government must show that the person "knowingly" did it.
I love how some of FR’s own “experts,” without knowing either the law or the facts beyond those printed in the article, are eager to declare Scalia, Roberts, et al idiots.
The legitimate risk should be tempered by prohibiting the ID thief from drawing any benefits with the purloined social security account number AND allowing the monies paid to remain credited to the actual owner of the social security account. That way the penalty is immediately assessed against the thief.
Since when is ignorance of the law a defense??
I was told just cause you don’t know the law, that you can’t get away with violating it.
The guy is here illegally and presents “numbers” on the precious document he can’t get legally and doesn’t know the numbers belong to someone else?
The issue here isn’t ignorance of the law, it’s ignorance of the facts, which is often a defense.
Ignorance of “facts.” In law it is a well established principle, called “mens rea.”
Purportedly, this pseudo ID could have been generated at random.
so the prosecutors screwed up and did not get the “knowing use” down.
The law on stolen identitty needs to be tweeked so that using an false OR assuming the name of another is the same thing.
After a very quick skim of the opinion, it may be worse. It appears that you may have to know the actual identity of the someone else that the stolen Porsche belongs to; not just that it is stolen.
Not certain how it will generally apply since the statute is focused through a specific set of circumstances (predicate crimes), but I'm sure the National Lawyers Guild is delighted to have this new defense arrow in their quiver.
The whole opinion turns on the meaning of the word "knowingly" and where the word is placed in the sentence of the statute.
He got 51 months already for related crimes, so I don’t think it’s really that big a deal.
I’d want the statute to be modded to include some provision about having reason to either know or suspect the ID was somebody else’s, dead or alive. The finite nature of the SSN makes that a pretty good bet. The one guy this case was about still got slammed pretty hard, but others may skip lightly.
My concern is for the enforcement side against the innocent victim of ID theft.
Say, an illegal, by pure chance, gets a job using my SSN, that he grabbed out of the air.
Further assume he pays all taxes due, and files a return, claiming 5 dependents against the income he earned, etc., and thus gets a refund.
WLOG, assume I innocently pay my taxes, and file my own return, ignorant of his illegal activity. I recieve my own IRS refund.
Uh-oh. Whose house does the IRS sieze, to cover the overpayment?
Obama's $789B stimulus bill created 2 million construction jobs--300,000 are earmarked for illegal aliens. The Senate passed, and Obama signed the bill that deleted the eVerify funding provision (in the House version).
The sneaky Senators killed off eVerify claiming it was holding up enactment of the package. Baloney. Compared to other provisions, E-Verify was hardly what you could call pork.
This was a secret deliberate, treacherous act. The Stimulus atrocity was crammed with earmarks but the 50 Democrats had no intentions of allowing a permanent eVerify. Politicians work for 10 million American who are jobless.....many of whom are young veterans who need to feed their families.
Call Congress 202-224-31211; WH 202-456-1414 eVerify allows employers to check the validity of SS nos. Demand a permenent eVerify. to hunt down millions of illegals being hired by unscrupulous employers.
=============================
Now the story of "good neighbors," here for a "better life"......just "God's children" living the "American Dream"......getting on the US gravy train, sucking off US taxpayers and draining the US Treasury dry.
July 21, 2006
Two held in bust of bogus ID operation
NORTH BERGEN, NJ -- Pelcastre brothers, Angel and Jorge, Dallas, were a walking threat to US national security, expert document forgers who, for a few thousand dollars, could give anyone a new identity, authorities said.
The two men turned a Tonnelle Avenue hotel room into a business office and were readying a massive cache of fake Social Security cards for delivery to a local identity broker.
They were a "one-stop shop" for a myriad of fake US documents, including birth certificates, Social Security cards, driver's licenses for any state in the US, passports and resident alien cards, said state police.
Officers happened upon two cars bearing Texas plates in a hotel parking lot. Authorities wouldn't identify the hotel by name for fear it would spark retribution. The Drug Interdiction Task Force, regularly runs checks. The brothers were followed to an office supply store nearby where they purchased computer supplies. Officers then followed the brothers to a storage facility in Secaucus, where they loaded several boxes into a car. One of them stood lookout. Authorities approached them when they returned to the hotel and questioned them separately. The brothers consented to a search.
Police recovered laminating sheets with built-in security features, pages of blank documents waiting for fake names and information, finished documents, computers and software to create the fake IDs.
All told, the haul was worth about $500,000 on the street. Police also recovered $6,000 in cash, which was the first payment from a fake document broker for a shipment of 500 Social Security cards.
As I said before, the "thief" is the one should bear the financial penalties of the theft. It is unlikely that the thief will have assumed the legal name of the owner of the social security account. It has been common practice since around 1980 to require children to acquire a social security number. That number has been required on income tax filings since that time as well. An identity thief is unlikely to have a birth certificate and matching name on the social security account.
You mean like Scalia and Roberts?
Are you really confident that, after the thief has flown the coup, the IRS will not persue the innocent?
Add a line to your application for employment that states the identification and social security numbers used to secure this employment are valid under penalty of perjury. Illegals are well aware that their fake documents are fake. They weren't obtained directly from an agency of the U.S. government. The illegal in this case knew his documents were fake as well. The very act of wanting to "use his real name" is prima facie evidence that he knew.
The illegal didn't submit an application to the U.S. government and receive documents from the U.S. government in return. He might as well have picked up a fake id in the toy section of the local department store. The manner of generation is irrelevant if it wasn't issued by the authorized government agency. The government bears responsibility as well when it fails to provide a means for the employer to do a name/number validation. That capability exists, but the RATS are making every effort to destroy it.
Considering the slime balls currently serving in government, I wouldn't be surprised at anything. Just look at the cases where paternity is clearly excluded by DNA testing, yet the "nominated father" still gets nailed for child support in spite of the facts.
QED
Still, I do not object to the decision - I think it should be applied to the IRS equally.
It doesn’t matter if he knew the documents were fake. The issue, under the statute, is whether he knew that the SS# and documents belonged to someone else. If he thought they were fake (as in, made up), rather than stolen (as in, real but belonging to someone else), then his crime does not fit the elements of this particular statute - that’s all this opinion says.
No one (SCOTUS included) is saying this guy committed no crime (well, maybe Napolitano would say that, but she’s an idiot so she doesn’t count). All anyone is saying is that this guy did not commit the particular crime of identity theft, as it is defined in the United State Code.
Yes, I didn’t address the broader problem. There is much that can be done to verify the authenticity of people’s credentials when hiring on which neither Rats nor McCainish Pubs wish to actually carry out.
It’s just this little legal corner of the issue.
Not true. Again, the manner of generation is irrelevant to whether or not the person committed a crime. However, it is extremely relevant to whether the person committed the particular crime of identity theft.
This is no big win for illegals - though it states that one particular law cannot be used unless the government can show that an individual knowingly used documents he knew belonged to someone else, it does not all of a sudden make it legal to use fake documents. Just means they'll be charged with something other than ID theft.
Ping!
Then how is it that people get arrested for "possession of stolen goods"? Can't they simply claim they didn't know they were stolen? How is it that they were arrested?
If we say that someone knowingly ate a sandwich with cheese, we normally assume that the person knew both that he was eating a sandwich and that it contained cheese.But we cannot assume the defendant knew there were two slices of bread, it would seem. Well, it was a hyper-technical decision and to decide it otherwise might unravel a whole slew of laws. Bottom line is that Congress did (and does) a poor job of crafting laws even though Congress is crawling with lawyers. Makes you wonder if any of them passed the bar.
It’s probably the way that this particular law is worded, to prevent it from catching people who accidentally use the wrong information. The role of a judge is to apply the law, not rewrite the law to suit their sense of justice. That’s what leftists do. If the law was worded to require knowlege and none could be proven, then he’s not guilty of breaking the law. That it may bother people does not mean that it was not a legitimate application of a law.
This was a 9-0 decision of the Supreme Court.
I would agree whole-heartedly that a switched number on your SSAN, for your W-2 should NOT be a crime. The inconvenience alone of having to correct that blunder is more than adequate punishment. The difference between “a person who has a card messing up” and an “illegal alien who never has been issued a card, stealing someone else’s card” seems very clear to me.
A substantive part of the law is “intent”. If I go into your garage to retreive my puppy, that should not be a crime. As intent was to retreive the puppy, this is demonstratable in that I emerge from your garage with a puppy that doesn’t belong to you. However, if I went into your garage with my flashlight, a crowbar, wearing a mask, ect ... one could argue that my intent was for illegal purposes - thus charges of trespassing would easily stand up in court, if not Burglary.
In this situation, an illegal alien is inelgible for having a SSAN card, and he knows this. His intent is to break the law through fraud. Just like making up VISA card numbers until you find one that works for buying stuff online - the intent is to defraud for personal gain. The fact that this person did not know the person whom he defrauded should be immaterial - but what do I know .... I’m not a Supreme.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.