- Joined
- Mar 5, 2008
- Messages
- 112,990
- Reaction score
- 60,557
- Location
- Sarasota Fla
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
It can be confusing, but the difference is between "general intent" crimes and "specific intent" crimes.
The ruling has really has nothing or very little to do with the legal status of the individual in the United States.
Basically what the ruling says and what the law requires is that if a person obtains a fake ID/SSN# with the intent to steal the person's identity and to defraud that person, it is a crime.
It is not "identity theft" if you believe that it is fake but have no knowledge of or try to assume the identity of another individual.
In other words, if an person obtains my SSN# and information and thereby tries to pass himself off as me...that is one thing.
If they fraudently randomly pick my SSN# but refer to themselves as Jose Gonzales or even Joe Smith, neither of which is my name, there is no intent to assume the identity and therefore no identity theft.
From what I read, this is only mostly right. The law in question specifically states that the defendant has to "knowingly" steal an identity. I have not read the whole ruling, but the from what I have read so far on it, the word "knowingly" in the law is the issue. With the law worded as it is, SCOTUS had no choice in how they ruled, which is why it was an actual unanimous decision. They did not to my knowledge rule on the global issue on whether the law could be changed to take out the word "knowingly" and then prosecute some one who unknowingly stole an identity by using a random number SSN.