Posted on 05/04/2009 9:59:46 AM PDT by COUNTrecount
In a 9-0 decision, the justices say the crime is limited to those who knew they had stolen another person's Social Security number. The decision limits efforts to prosecute illegal workers.
Reporting Form Washington -- The Supreme Court today took away one tool for prosecuting and deporting workers who are in this country illegally, ruling that the crime of identity theft is limited to those who knew they had stolen another person's Social Security number.
The 9-0 decision overturns part of an Illinois man's conviction for using false documents.
The court agreed he could be imprisoned for using an ID card he knew was false, but it also said he could not be charged with a felony of "aggravated identity theft" because he did not know he was using someone's Social Security number.
Last year, immigration officials in the Bush administration had rounded up hundreds of illegal workers at several plants and charged them with "aggravated identity theft."
Facing such a serious charge, many agreed to plead guilty and be deported.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
HUH?? Am I missing something here?
So much for privacy rights. Someone can run around as you and you are limited in your response.
Our nation has turned against the citizens and supports foreign invaders for political purposes.
9-0 is bad.
Let someone with a stolen passport try this excuse.
The difference is this:
One person steals a SS# they know is false.
Another person knowingly uses a fake SS#, that ends up belonging to another person.
I wonder if I can use this “argument” if I shoot someone when they try to harm me or my family?
“Your honor, I did not know or care if the gun was loaded. I just pointed and pulled the trigger.” Yea, let’s see that fly.
And a 9-0 vote! It’s time they ALL retire. Belay that...it would only give BHO 9x the chance to screw up the future for years. Sheesh...it’s a no win.
Gee, won’t it be wonderful when B.O. packs the Supremes with libs. Barf
9 - 0. Probably the correct decision since the illegals aren’t really trying to steal an identity and defraud the true person of anything. But there are definitely all sorts of wrongs being committed by using false documents and IDs, numerous misrepresenting about who the illegal is, etc., etc.
If you read the opinion, you would recognize that the USSC simply applied the law as written. If congress wants to change the law, it is free to do so.
The USSC applied the plain meaning of the words in the statute. Would be thrilled if they did that all the time.
The court agreed he could be imprisoned for using an ID card he knew was false, but it also said he could not be charged with a felony of “aggravated identity theft” because he did not know he was using someone’s Social Security number.....
Oh, Jeeze please!....And what happens to the people who’s id gets duplicated randomly and used?....Sorry Charlie! It’s not “aggravated identity theft” it’s “random identity theft”...you loose! What a pile of crap!
If true, why didn't he just use 123-45-6789?
If you illegally buy a SS from someone how do you not know that it’s stolen?
If true, why didn’t he just use 123-45-6789?
Exactly! The Supreme Court gives these thieves no credit. They will only reproduce cards with logical sequence numbers that will more than likely copy someones legitimate social security number!
What is the Supreme Court doing? Punishing the people?
That’s the difference. They did not (or supposedly) did not know it belonged to someone else.
In other cases, people knowingly steal the SS# of a person and intentionally steal the identity.
So the Supreme Court takes the word of the thief as to whether or not he knew the i.d. belonged to someone else?
....What a joke!
If you buy a SS from someone how can you think that it’s legal?
Not at all. What they are doing is not allowing a broad brush to be applied here.
I agree that if someone made up a SSN and it turned out that it belonged to a real person, then identity theft had not occurred.
Intent is the crux of this decision. No intent to defraud. I think the decision is sensible.
Before the flaming starts, I am NOT in favor of illegal immigrants faking SSNs to come here, but mis-applying a law is becoming a real problem. A child brings a Tylenol to school, and they get charged as if they brought a kilo of coke. Intent is out the window.
That's my story and I am sticking to it.
Couldn’t it be from a dead person? Not a living person who’s identity you are trying to steal?
Or a “dummy number” that belongs to nobody?
I’m not taking the perp’s side on this. And I don’t know that much about the issue.
But it seems to me that if Scalia, Alito and Thomas voted for this that there must be more to it than what is seen on first glance.
I don’t even play a lawyer on TV, but if you willingly buy an SS (which if you’re legal you get free from the government) and use it, how can you not know that what you are doing is illegal? Your intention is to defraud your employer by giving false information as a condition of employment.
Whether or not you think it's legal is not the issue (and, note that even after this decision, it is most certainly not legal to use a fake SS#, even if you don't know where it comes from). The issue is whether you know (and, thus, whether the government can prove you know) that you are using a number belongs to someone else.
Using a completely fake SS# is a crime, but it is not ID theft. Using a stolen SS# is a crime, but it is not Aggravated ID theft, as defined in the statute unless you know that the number belonged to someone else (rather than simply being fake).
This decision is nothing but the clear application of the explicit language of a duly-enacted statute. To rule the other way (though possibly desirable from an immigration-enforcement perspective: the more tools we have, the better) would be nothing less than judicial activism, which is unacceptable whatever the result.
No, that is not what is happening.
My daughter found out that somebody in the midwest is using her Social Security Number. But evidently, the Social Security Administration KNOWS that it is not her.
The person using my daughter's number is using a different name. They are not attempting to use my daughter's identity. They are attempting to create a completely separate, different identity that uses the same number.
The Supreme Court is simply recognizing that it is two different things. And they are not "taking the word of the defendant". Rather, they are insisting that the burden of proof, even with respect to the intentions of a defendant, rests totally with the prosecution.
The real problem is that the government does not pursue the fraudulent identity crime when it is so widespread. It may someday cost my daughter something and the entire cost is attributable to government toleration of identity fraud and lack of prosecution.
The point of the Supreme Court decision is just that; a person whose intention is to defraud an employer is guilty of fraud, but not necessarily guilty of the specific crime of "identity theft".
It would be similar to having a prosecutor convict somebody of speeding because they double-parked. Both are illegal. But you have to prove the crime charged in order to deserve a conviction.
Thanks for clarifying.
I would like to know if they will punish these people who are using made up ss numbers? :)
I understand the point you are trying to make, just as those that say the “letter” the law was applied, but you are SURELY and SORELY mistaken if you think ID theft did not occur.
You ever have someone file a tax return on your SSN? You ever find out you owe $4500 in taxes AFTER you receive $1200 back from the IRS? You ever try to PROVE to the IRS that you have never worked in Kansas? You then try to PROVE to the state of Kansas that you aren’t going to pay their taxes either? It took three years, 3 YEARS to get the IRS and Kansas off my back about my SSN being used!
Believe me: ID THEFT DID OCCUR!!!
Could someone please explain what happened here? It doesn’t sound right.
Could Obama’s mother using that other woman’s ss number with her own name have done the same thing?
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.