Posted on 10/21/2014 6:10:29 AM PDT by dennisw
Supreme Court Overturns Illegal Immigrant’s ID Theft Conviction
MAY 04, 2009
The Supreme Court has unanimously ruled that an illegal immigrant who used stolen documents to work is not guilty of identity theft because he didn’t know the information belonged to another person.
The ruling eliminates an important tool for prosecuting and deporting illegal aliens who victimize Americans by stealing their identities to get jobs in this country. In its 18-page decision the court says that the crime of identity theft is limited to those who actually know they stole someone else’s information.
Prosecutors must therefore prove that illegal immigrants who use false identification papers know they belong to another person to be convicted of identity theft. The Supreme Court ruling, which resolves conflicting appeals court decisions on the issue, overturns the aggravated identity theft conviction of a Mexican illegal immigrant (Ignacio Flores-Figueroa).
Flores-Figueroa had pleaded guilty to two counts of misuse of immigration documents and one count of illegally entering the United States. He was subsequently convicted on two counts of aggravated identity theft which added two years to the 51-month sentence for the previous crimes.
In 2000 the illegal alien used a fake name and Social Security number to get a job at an Illinois steal plant. In 2006, he told his employers that he wanted to use his real name and submitted new documents, including a Social Security number he bought in Chicago that belonged to someone else.
But in the High Court’s opinion, Justice Stephen Breyer writes that the law requires prosecutors to show that the defendant knew the counterfeit identification belonged to another person. The court agreed that the illegal immigrant could be charged with a misdemeanor for using an identification he knew was false, but he could not be charged with a felony of aggravated identity theft because he did not know he was using someone else’s Social Security number.
This has to be the most stupid ruling yet. The perp KNEW that the ID didn’t belong to him. What else do you need to prove?
Can someone somehow explain the legal reasoning behind this. How this critter is not guilty of stealing someones SS number? Thanks!
I just cannot see it!
Imagine you go to a foreign country and want to work. So some local gives you an “ID” that he says will allow you to get a job. You have no idea that it is stolen and the laws are confusing, but a guy gave you some “bogus” papers to allow you to work.
Except it turns out they are not bogus, but stolen.
You may be guilty of working via papers you knew were not legitimate, but that is different than working with papers that are stolen.
The cool thing about the law is that it is quite black and white. If the court can not prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the guy KNEW the papers that someone else gave him were stolen, he is not guilty.
It is literally that simple and why this was a unanimous decision.
Apparently, the statute as written requires knowledge that the number belongs to another person (i.e., is not made up).
The Supreme Court, in this case, followed the law.
First of all, what the heck 'Illinois steal plant'?
Secondly, he 'bought' an SSN, but did not know it belonged to somebody else. WHO BUYS AN SSN? Another WTF moment.
The ruling limits the crime of 'identity theft' to somebody knowingly steal another's identity is a good one. (Don't flame me!) Otherwise, it opens up a $%^& can down the road.
The argument was that the illegal didn’t know the information belonged to another person. Forget the fact that they conspired to acquire unlawful documentation, you mean to tell me that they were so dumb they didn’t think it was illegitimate?
Last I checked, ignorance of the law is not a valid legal precept.
The headline is misleading. This is an issue of whether certain crimes require intent. If you use “John Smith” as your fake ID name, have you stolen the identity of the thousands of real “John Smiths” who live in America? The Supreme Court said no.
America is addicted to slave labor. In Europe, no such easy cheap labor is available, so innovations in automation have advanced there, such as robot/machine fruit picking, which is becoming widespread. Illegal immigration stifles innovation here at home.
A lot of posters are arguing factual questions here. The Supreme Court does not argue facts. The facts were stipulated to in the briefs. And here, the stipulated fact was that the criminal did NOT know he was using a real person’s ID.
Think I’ll use that excuse when the IRS comes to my door and says I didn’t pay my taxes.
“Hey some guy told me I didn’t have to pay my taxes, he seemed legit to me.”
It just can’t be stupidity, or incompetence. It has to be designed. There are just way too many fallen legislative members who were once America loving patriots. They are either being threatened, coerced, blackmailed, or.....something. Possibly bribed. But then they were corrupt in the first place. I just don’t believe that.
Where the heck did they think the info came from, the ID fairy? Oh, wait ... Breyer ...
The ruling limits the crime of ‘identity theft’ to somebody knowingly steal another’s identity is a good one. (Don’t flame me!) Otherwise, it opens up a $%^& can down the road.
Imagine you buy something off of craigslist that you honestly believe the guy did not steal. He has a very logical and believable backstory on the item.
But it turns out to be stolen. Should you be prosecuted for stealing it or even accepting stolen merchandise? I hope not.
So according to this, the SC believes that this guy didn’t understand that the SS# he bought really belonged to someone else, after having used a previous fake name and SS#.
I have a bridge to sell them.
Next, who the hell writes our freaking laws so that you must prove that the thief knew it belonged to someone else? You cannot purchase a legitimate SS# here, you are assigned one.
Shoot, next thing you know, this dude is going to be elected to the Presidency.
Pretty sure an 'Illinois steal plant' is a Chicago pol training facility? Its where creatures like Obama learn to redistribute wealth from those who earned it?
And they are always innocent, because they neither know nor care from whence the wealth was purloined?
So maybe just maybe the Eric Holder Justice Dept threw this case. Bungled it on purpose by so stipulating
If you use “John Smith” as your fake ID name, have you stolen the identity of the thousands of real “John Smiths” who live in America?
IOW, he viewed his action as akin to taking a new name, one that doesn't belong to anybody else, so he doesn't think he is stepping on somebody elses toes (beyond those he is deceiving with false ID).
The facts may speak otherwise to this. If he knew there was some sort of history associated with this "new" ID, then that history has to belong to somebody else. SCOTUS is adept at ignoring facts, and at ignoring law.
STEAL plant?
Freudian slip?
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.