Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Supreme Court rules for immigrant in ID theft case
Ordinarily, a case of an illegal immigrant working under fake documents would not wind up at the U.S. Supreme Court.
But the case of Ignacio Flores-Figueroa is a bit more complicated.
There's no doubt that Flores-Figueroa, a Mexican illegal immigrant, got a job at an Illinois steel plant by using false identification.
When Flores-Figueroa got hired at the plant in 2000, he was working under an assumed name and a bogus Social Security number.
In 2006, he gave his employer his real name and a new Social Security number. But that number actually belonged to a real person. So Flores-Figueroa got detained by immigration agents.
He pleaded guilty to entering the U.S. illegally and misuse of immigration documents.
He and his lawyers argued that he could not have stolen someone's identity under the letter of the law. Federal statute says that in identity theft cases someone must "knowingly" use identification belonging to another person.
Flores-Figueroa says he didn't know whose identity he was using.
The Supreme Court today agreed with him, saying that someone convicted of identity theft must know that the identification documents belonged to another individual.
Now I imagine all the folks who complain about "activist judges" not interpreting laws literally enough, will wail and moan about the judges in this case interpreting the law too literally.
Supreme Court rules for immigrant in ID theft case
Ordinarily, a case of an illegal immigrant working under fake documents would not wind up at the U.S. Supreme Court.
But the case of Ignacio Flores-Figueroa is a bit more complicated.
There's no doubt that Flores-Figueroa, a Mexican illegal immigrant, got a job at an Illinois steel plant by using false identification.
When Flores-Figueroa got hired at the plant in 2000, he was working under an assumed name and a bogus Social Security number.
In 2006, he gave his employer his real name and a new Social Security number. But that number actually belonged to a real person. So Flores-Figueroa got detained by immigration agents.
He pleaded guilty to entering the U.S. illegally and misuse of immigration documents.
He and his lawyers argued that he could not have stolen someone's identity under the letter of the law. Federal statute says that in identity theft cases someone must "knowingly" use identification belonging to another person.
Flores-Figueroa says he didn't know whose identity he was using.
The Supreme Court today agreed with him, saying that someone convicted of identity theft must know that the identification documents belonged to another individual.
The court didn't say that this man didn't commit identity theft. They said he didn't commit aggravated identity theft. There is a distinction, and the court was just clarifying that distinction.
I was under the assumption that ignorance of the law didn't preclude one from being charged if said law is broken.
The last time I got a speeding ticket (granted, many many years ago) it was on a stretch of road that was 45 mph then 35 mph for about a block then back to 45 mph. I got caught going 45 when it was only 35. I didn't see a sign. I still got a ticket.
Clearly my intent wasn't to speed. I thought I was going the legal limit. The officer didn't care and I had to pony up what for me at that time was a lot of money.
So how does this case differ? The man knew he was using a ssn that didn't belong to him. He can say he didn't know it was an actual ssn in use, but what did he do to ensure that? Nothing? Then I fail to see what he meant to do (use a bogus ssn) vs what he did do (used a real persons ssn) merits him an exception to the law.
And it is wrong to say that people who are against legislating from the bench are being hypocritical in this case. The judge made new law by putting suppossed intent above the actual crime committed.
And it is wrong to say that people who are against legislating from the bench are being hypocritical in this case. The judge made new law by putting suppossed intent above the actual crime committed.
Except that the law itself requires intent -- the judges didn't make that up.
Except that the law itself requires intent -- the judges didn't make that up.
Why else would a person steal and/or use someone elses ssn if not to commit fraud? Is there an 'innocent' reason for doing that? No, no more then there is an innocent reason to happen to have several grams of meth on ones person. Yeah, yeah 'personal use' doesn't fly
In this case, if intent is being bandied about for illegal immigrants as a plausible reason, an 'innocent' reason to have and use someone elses ssn then that to me is an abuse of the bench. What that to me is nothing short then a two tiered legal system, one for illegal immigrants and another for legal immigrants and citizens. In this case, 'personal use' doesn't fly either.
I was under the assumption that ignorance of the law didn't preclude one from being charged if said law is broken.
The last time I got a speeding ticket (granted, many many years ago) it was on a stretch of road that was 45 mph then 35 mph for about a block then back to 45 mph. I got caught going 45 when it was only 35. I didn't see a sign. I still got a ticket.
Clearly my intent wasn't to speed. I thought I was going the legal limit. The officer didn't care and I had to pony up what for me at that time was a lot of money.
So how does this case differ? The man knew he was using a ssn that didn't belong to him. He can say he didn't know it was an actual ssn in use, but what did he do to ensure that? Nothing? Then I fail to see what he meant to do (use a bogus ssn) vs what he did do (used a real persons ssn) merits him an exception to the law.
And it is wrong to say that people who are against legislating from the bench are being hypocritical in this case. The judge made new law by putting suppossed intent above the actual crime committed.
The judge explicitly stated in the decision that jailing this person for identity theft was legal. They have only said that he's not guilty of aggravated identity theft because the distinction is in the intent. Like the distinction between manslaughter and murder. Intent distinguishes the crimes.
Several years ago, a man shot and killed a California Condor - an extremely endangered bird. The way the law prohibiting such an act is written, the person must intentionally shoot the endangered animal. He claimed ignorance, and got off scott-free.
I've heard over and over that ignorance of the law is not a defense. Apparently, it is in some cases.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
-- the judges didn't make that up.
