Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Supreme Court rules against government in immigration identity-theft case
LA Times ^ | May 4, 2009 | David G. Savage

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 ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: aliens; fakeids; identitytheft; illegalimmigration; impersonation; judicialactivism; privacyrights; scotus; socialsecurity
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-29 next last
Justice Stephen G. Breyer said that in most cases of identity theft, the defendant sets out to steal someone's identity so to take money from their accounts. In this case, the illegal immigrant wanted to use a false Social Security number as though it was his, but he did not know or care whether it was a real person's number.

HUH?? Am I missing something here?

1 posted on 05/04/2009 9:59:47 AM PDT by COUNTrecount
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: COUNTrecount

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.


2 posted on 05/04/2009 10:02:31 AM PDT by a fool in paradise (IRONY - we know more about the First Dog's historical papers than we do of President Barack.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: COUNTrecount
but he did not know or care whether it was a real person's number.

If I drive a car with my eyes closed and hit something, will I not be held liable for the accident as I 'did not know or care' what was in front of me?
3 posted on 05/04/2009 10:03:31 AM PDT by posterchild (Endowed by my Creator with certain unalienable rights.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: COUNTrecount

9-0 is bad.

Let someone with a stolen passport try this excuse.


4 posted on 05/04/2009 10:07:44 AM PDT by a fool in paradise (IRONY - we know more about the First Dog's historical papers than we do of President Barack.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: COUNTrecount

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.


5 posted on 05/04/2009 10:08:13 AM PDT by earlJam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: posterchild

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.


6 posted on 05/04/2009 10:09:38 AM PDT by Muddy168 (Desert Sailor. N-ARMY Strong!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: COUNTrecount

Gee, won’t it be wonderful when B.O. packs the Supremes with libs. Barf


7 posted on 05/04/2009 10:12:32 AM PDT by KeyLargo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: COUNTrecount

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.


8 posted on 05/04/2009 10:12:43 AM PDT by Will88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: COUNTrecount

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.


9 posted on 05/04/2009 10:13:29 AM PDT by SeaHawkFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: COUNTrecount

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!


10 posted on 05/04/2009 10:17:16 AM PDT by AngelesCrestHighway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AngelesCrestHighway
because he did not know he was using someone’s Social Security number.....

If true, why didn't he just use 123-45-6789?

11 posted on 05/04/2009 10:20:27 AM PDT by VeniVidiVici (Sprechen sie Austrian?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: earlJam

If you illegally buy a SS from someone how do you not know that it’s stolen?


12 posted on 05/04/2009 10:29:29 AM PDT by COUNTrecount (http://obamaclock.org/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: VeniVidiVici

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!


13 posted on 05/04/2009 10:33:12 AM PDT by AngelesCrestHighway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: COUNTrecount

What is the Supreme Court doing? Punishing the people?


14 posted on 05/04/2009 10:38:18 AM PDT by freekitty (Give me back my conservative vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: COUNTrecount

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.


15 posted on 05/04/2009 10:40:02 AM PDT by earlJam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: earlJam

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!


16 posted on 05/04/2009 10:52:45 AM PDT by AngelesCrestHighway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: earlJam

If you buy a SS from someone how can you think that it’s legal?


17 posted on 05/04/2009 10:58:11 AM PDT by COUNTrecount (http://obamaclock.org/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: freekitty
What is the Supreme Court doing? Punishing the people?

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.

18 posted on 05/04/2009 11:01:38 AM PDT by Mr. Quarterpanel (I am not an actor, but I play one on TV)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: COUNTrecount

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.


19 posted on 05/04/2009 11:02:52 AM PDT by earlJam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Quarterpanel

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.


20 posted on 05/04/2009 11:26:10 AM PDT by COUNTrecount (http://obamaclock.org/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-29 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson