• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Supreme Court Rules Against Government in Identity-Theft Case

danarhea

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,602
Reaction score
26,256
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
1) Illegal aliens use fake ID inside the US.

2) Supreme Court rules that illegal aliens cannot be prosecuted for ID theft.

I do not understand this ruling, which says that the illegal alien had to be aware that his fake ID was coming from another person. Fake ID's have to come from somewhere. Otherwise, there would no Social Security record of his existence, and he would be caught. That is why fake ID's are typically made by stealing the good ID's of real people. So an illegal alien is not supposed to understand that, when he got his fake ID, he was stealing someone else's identity? BS - Ignorance of the law is no excuse. But since illegal aliens broke the law when they crossed the border, what makes you think that they would respect the law at all?

I am very disappointed with the court's decision.

Article is here.

NOTE: I think I will carry some weed with me wherever I go, then when I get caught, just say "I didn't know that was weed". That ought to get me off the hook. If it doesn't, I will just appeal to my good friends, the Supreme Court. :mrgreen:
 
Last edited:
danarhea said:
1) Illegal aliens use fake ID inside the US.

2) Supreme Court rules that illegal aliens cannot be prosecuted for ID theft.

I do not understand this ruling, which says that the illegal alien had to be aware that his fake ID was coming from another person. Fake ID's have to come from somewhere. Otherwise, there would no Social Security record of his existence, and he would be caught. That is why fake ID's are typically made by stealing the good ID's of real people. So an illegal alien is not supposed to understand that, when he got his fake ID, he was stealing someone else's identity? BS - Ignorance of the law is no excuse. But since illegal aliens broke the law when they crossed the border, what makes you think that they would respect the law at all?

I am very disappointed with the court's decision.

Article is here.

NOTE: I think I will carry some weed with me wherever I go, then when I get caught, just say "I didn't know that was weed". That ought to get me off the hook. If it doesn't, I will just appeal to my good friends, the Supreme Court. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

No, many (if not most) fake social security numbers are just completely made up. The people who use them won't be getting a tax refund, but a random number is usually sufficient for a job application.
 
danarhea said:
1) Illegal aliens use fake ID inside the US.

2) Supreme Court rules that illegal aliens cannot be prosecuted for ID theft.
Click to expand...

I cannot perceive of any way that being in a country illegally should make you immune from any law of that country. I am just absolutely blown away by this.

Oh, ok, here it is:

The ruling in Flores-Figueroa v. United States, No. 08-108, was written by Justice Stephen G. Breyer and relied heavily on the wording of the statute, specifically its language regarding when a defendant can be properly accused of “knowingly” and unlawfully using another person’s identification.
Click to expand...

I guess I can see that. it's not being an illegal alien that makes them immune, any one who does not know that their ID is stolen is safe. Still stupid, but the problem is with the law itself, not the SCOTUS decision.

Guess I should start reading the article before I start posting.
 
Kandahar said:
No, many (if not most) fake social security numbers are just completely made up. The people who use them won't be getting a tax refund, but a random number is usually sufficient for a job application.
Click to expand...

OK, if the numbers are made up, then let's see how far you get using the fake Social Security to get a driver's license or state ID. Many illegals have them, and the government DOES check out Social Security cards against a data base before issuing an ID card.
 
Last edited:
danarhea said:
OK, if the numbers are made up, then let's see how far you get using the fake Social Security to get a driver's license or state ID. Many illegals have them, and the government DOES check out Social Security cards against a data base before issuing an ID card.
Click to expand...

Right, the GOVERNMENT (sometimes) checks them when you apply for some kind of ID. But a lot of employers don't check them when you apply for a job. And that's generally what the fake social security numbers are used for.

The Court is correct in this case. Proving identity theft should require evidence that the defendant KNOWINGLY harmed someone else (hence the "theft" part of identity theft). Writing down a random number that happens to be someone else's SSN# is just bad luck.
 
Last edited:
I agree with the court. Identity theft should require proof that you actually intended to steal someone elses identity. However, knowingly using a fake SSN number should be a crime of its own. Prosecution should still happen, just not for ID theft.
 
rathi said:
I agree with the court. Identity theft should require proof that you actually intended to steal someone elses identity. However, knowingly using a fake SSN number should be a crime of its own. Prosecution should still happen, just not for ID theft.
Click to expand...

Now I disagree with that. If you engage in an activity that could result in you breaking the law, you should be punished if you do. The whole reason the law was overturned was the wording of the law, which stated that the person had to know they where stealing an identity.

The simple solution as I see it is to change the wording of the law to take away the wording that the defendant has to knowingly be stealing an identity. Though, wouldn't it be cheaper just to ship illegal aliens back to their native country than to prosecute and jail them? I hate to spend more money than absolutely necessary on illegals.
 
Another example of a prosecutor going after a criminal for the wrong crime! Idiot!

Why charge "Aggravated Identity Theft"???
 
Last edited:
Kandahar said:
Right, the GOVERNMENT (sometimes) checks them when you apply for some kind of ID. But a lot of employers don't check them when you apply for a job. And that's generally what the fake social security numbers are used for.

The Court is correct in this case. Proving identity theft should require evidence that the defendant KNOWINGLY harmed someone else (hence the "theft" part of identity theft). Writing down a random number that happens to be someone else's SSN# is just bad luck.
Click to expand...

What happened to ignorance of the law is no excuse?
 
So when it came to Identity Theft, there wasn't really any intentional identity theft going on.

He was only an illegal immigrant, not a identity theft con-artist.

Am I getting this right?
 
Last edited:
There is a problem with Social Security Numbers used for identification: the number is not necessarily unique to an individual. There are people out there who lawfully have the same social security number.

Additionally, there are number sequences not yet assigned.

Consequently, can a person use made-up social security numbers to obtain various identification documents and be operating under the presumption that the identity so created does not match another person's identity? Yes, it is possible.

From what little information is contained in the article, I have to agree with the court. Basically, the defendant was charged with the wrong crime, or perhaps a superfluous crime. He committed several counts of fraud, certainly, but, depending on how his documents were obtained, it is not certain he "knowingly" stole another person's identity, which, according to the article, is an essential element of the statutory offense of identity theft.

For a conviction to be just, the defendant has to be shown to have committed the crime charged, and that means proving all the elements of the crime. If prior knowledge is an element of a crime per statutory law, then prior knowledge needs to be shown, and, absent evidence to support prior knowledge, the legally correct verdict for such a charge would be not guilty, even if the same body of evidence is sufficient to convict of other, similar charges.
 
ADK_Forever said:
Another example of a prosecutor going after a criminal for the wrong crime! Idiot!

Why charge "Aggravated Identity Theft"???
Click to expand...

Dammit ADK, you know the time-space continuum won't survive you agreeing with me (or vice versa)!:mrgreen:
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
What happened to ignorance of the law is no excuse?
Click to expand...

That is a different principle. That means that you can't use the defense "I didn't know that what I was doing was illegal." That's completely different from "I didn't know that my actions would result in a crime." If the illegal immigrant in question knowingly committed identity theft and then claimed that he didn't know that identity theft was a crime, then I would agree.

To illustrate the difference between these two principles, here's an analogy. Suppose that some elderly man receives a social security check every week for $500. One week, he receives a check for $50,000 by mistake. He deposits it in his bank account without looking at it, like he always does, and doesn't alert the government to its error. Has he defrauded the government? I think not. If, on the other hand, he knew perfectly well about the error and claimed he didn't know that his actions were illegal, then he should be found guilty.
 
Last edited:
Kandahar said:
That is a different principle. That means that you can't use the defense "I didn't know that what I was doing was illegal." That's completely different from "I didn't know that my actions would result in a crime." If the illegal immigrant in question knowingly committed identity theft and then claimed that he didn't know that identity theft was a crime, then I would agree.

To illustrate the difference between these two principles, here's an analogy. Suppose that some elderly man receives a social security check every week for $500. One week, he receives a check for $50,000 by mistake. He deposits it in his bank account without looking at it, like he always does, and doesn't alert the government to its error. Has he defrauded the government? I think not. If, on the other hand, he knew perfectly well about the other error and claimed he didn't know that his actions were illegal, then he should be found guilty.
Click to expand...

Thats such a stretch that can be played.

The illegal immigrant had to know on some level that the SSN was stolen otherwise he wouldn't have gone through back channels to get it.
 
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.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Thats such a stretch that can be played.

The illegal immigrant had to know on some level that the SSN was stolen otherwise he wouldn't have gone through back channels to get it.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. You can get fake IDs with random numbers used for the SSN. In fact, most of them use random numbers. If I was an illegal immigrant trying to fly below the radar, the last thing I would want is someone else's actual SSN.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
The illegal immigrant had to know on some level that the SSN was stolen otherwise he wouldn't have gone through back channels to get it.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. What the defendant had to have known was that he obtained forged/fraudulent documents. If I obtain a forged driver's license that was not properly issued by a state DMV, I have not stolen anybody's identity. I have committed a crime, and doubly so if I use that forged license in any way, just not the crime of identity theft.

If I steal someone's SSN and driver's license info, and use that information to acquire credit cards and other services using the particulars of that person's identity, then I have stolen their identity.

It is not a question of the action being a crime; it is a question of what crime that action is. As a matter of ensuring an equitable dispensation of justice in the courts, prosecutors need to be certain they are charging the defendant with the right crime. That does not seem to have happened in this case.
 
celticlord said:
Not necessarily. What the defendant had to have known was that he obtained forged/fraudulent documents. If I obtain a forged driver's license that was not properly issued by a state DMV, I have not stolen anybody's identity. I have committed a crime, and doubly so if I use that forged license in any way, just not the crime of identity theft.

If I steal someone's SSN and driver's license info, and use that information to acquire credit cards and other services using the particulars of that person's identity, then I have stolen their identity.

It is not a question of the action being a crime; it is a question of what crime that action is. As a matter of ensuring an equitable dispensation of justice in the courts, prosecutors need to be certain they are charging the defendant with the right crime. That does not seem to have happened in this case.
Click to expand...

Exactly right....wow....I agree with CL on something ;)
 
Kandahar said:
Not necessarily. You can get fake IDs with random numbers used for the SSN. In fact, most of them use random numbers. If I was an illegal immigrant trying to fly below the radar, the last thing I would want is someone else's actual SSN.
Click to expand...


celticlord said:
Not necessarily. What the defendant had to have known was that he obtained forged/fraudulent documents. If I obtain a forged driver's license that was not properly issued by a state DMV, I have not stolen anybody's identity. I have committed a crime, and doubly so if I use that forged license in any way, just not the crime of identity theft.

If I steal someone's SSN and driver's license info, and use that information to acquire credit cards and other services using the particulars of that person's identity, then I have stolen their identity.

It is not a question of the action being a crime; it is a question of what crime that action is. As a matter of ensuring an equitable dispensation of justice in the courts, prosecutors need to be certain they are charging the defendant with the right crime. That does not seem to have happened in this case.
Click to expand...

That makes sense.

Isn't it true though that the government charges and convicts people with crimes even though that wasn't their intent.

This decision should filter down to all levels of crime.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
That makes sense.

Isn't it true though that the government charges and convicts people with crimes even though that wasn't their intent.

This decision should filter down to all levels of crime.
Click to expand...

It goes back to what I posted a few posts back. There are some crimes that are "general intent" and others that are "specific intent".

Some crimes require no specific intent other than the intent to do the activity that the law determines to be a crime.
Other crimes require that the activity was done with some type of specific intent, such as identity theft, stealing someone's information to assume their identity to commit any number of transactions such as thefts and frauds.
 
disneydude said:
It goes back to what I posted a few posts back. There are some crimes that are "general intent" and others that are "specific intent".

Some crimes require no specific intent other than the intent to do the activity that the law determines to be a crime.
Other crimes require that the activity was done with some type of specific intent, such as identity theft, stealing someone's information to assume their identity to commit any number of transactions such as thefts and frauds.
Click to expand...

I understand but like with drug laws.

If you posses more than a certain amount they automatically charge you with intent to distribute even though they have no evidence proving as such.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Isn't it true though that the government charges and convicts people with crimes even though that wasn't their intent.
Click to expand...
Intent is not a requisite element of every crime. Under the felony murder rule, for example, if a person dies of a heart attack while being held up at gunpoint, the mugger is still a murderer despite not having formed an intent to kill.

In the particulars of the specific identity theft law under scrutiny, one of the requisite elements of the crime is that the person "knowingly" use another person's SSN. That creates a burden on the prosecution to show that the defendant used the SSN knowing that it had been assigned to another person--that there was intent to steal another person's identity.

Perhaps the defendant did have such knowledge. That is not impossible. However, if the evidence presented does not establish that he had such knowledge, the only legally correct verdict is "not guilty" on the specific crime of identity theft, as the statute is currently constructed.

If the construction of the statute is flawed as a matter of public policy, then it is up to the legislature to modify the statute to remove intent as a requisite element of the offense.

Harry Guerrilla said:
This decision should filter down to all levels of crime.
Click to expand...
Not likely. The Supreme Court basically said the prosecution screwed the pooch by charging the wrong crime and/or failing to prove the crime charged. Sucky day for the prosecution, but the moral of the story is prosecutors need to do their homework.
 
celticlord said:
There is a problem with Social Security Numbers used for identification: the number is not necessarily unique to an individual. There are people out there who lawfully have the same social security number.
Click to expand...

I'm getting woosey... two agreements with you in one thread... I need fluids... :2wave:
 
celticlord said:
Intent is not a requisite element of every crime. Under the felony murder rule, for example, if a person dies of a heart attack while being held up at gunpoint, the mugger is still a murderer despite not having formed an intent to kill.

In the particulars of the specific identity theft law under scrutiny, one of the requisite elements of the crime is that the person "knowingly" use another person's SSN. That creates a burden on the prosecution to show that the defendant used the SSN knowing that it had been assigned to another person--that there was intent to steal another person's identity.

Perhaps the defendant did have such knowledge. That is not impossible. However, if the evidence presented does not establish that he had such knowledge, the only legally correct verdict is "not guilty" on the specific crime of identity theft, as the statute is currently constructed.

If the construction of the statute is flawed as a matter of public policy, then it is up to the legislature to modify the statute to remove intent as a requisite element of the offense.


Not likely. The Supreme Court basically said the prosecution screwed the pooch by charging the wrong crime and/or failing to prove the crime charged. Sucky day for the prosecution, but the moral of the story is prosecutors need to do their homework.
Click to expand...

In your scenario above it wouldn't be more but involuntary manslaughter because even though your doing a despicable act you had no intent to kill.

I prefer some sort of uniformity, especially in the case because if intent is the only reason you get charged then honestly having no intent means you didn't try to do it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom