10-27-2008, 09:46 PM
Supreme Court Will Hear Illegal Alien's ID Theft Case
On October 20th the U.S. Supreme Court announced that it would hear the case Flores-Figueroa v. U.S. The case will settle the differing appellate interpretations of the U.S. Code's aggravated identity theft provision. (18 USC § 1028A) The issue in the case is whether the prosecution must prove that the defendant in an identity theft case knew the fraudulent identification belonged to somebody else.
The pertinent code section states:
Whoever, during and in relation to any felony violation enumerated in subsection ©, knowingly transfers, possesses, or uses, without lawful authority, a means of identification of another person shall in addition to the punishment provided for such felony, be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 2 years.
In the case before the court, Flores, a native of Mexico illegally present in the U.S., began working at a steel company in East Moline, Illinois, under the assumed name of Horacio Ramirez. Flores told his employer that he wanted to be known as Ignacio C. Flores and that he wanted to change the Social Security and alien registration numbers that the employer had on file for him. He then presented the employer with a counterfeit Social Security card and a counterfeit alien registration card. Both the counterfeit documents contained identification numbers that had been assigned to a different person. These documents were in the petitioner's possession when he was arrested. He was charged with one count of entering the United States without inspection, two counts of misuse of immigration documents, and two counts of aggravated identity theft.
At his trial, Flores argued that the aggravated identity theft charges should be dropped because the government had not proved Flores knew that the Social Security and alien registration numbers he used had been assigned to other people. The trial court rejected that argument, and Flores was convicted on both counts of aggravated identity theft. The Eighth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed and upheld the conviction. (Ignacio Carlos Flores-Figueroa v. United States of America, Brief for the United States of America)
According to the New York Times, defense attorneys argue that federal prosecutors have used the identity theft provision to pressure illegal aliens to plead guilty to lesser immigration violations. They also argue that their clients shouldn't be charged with the offense because these individuals were only seeking documents to allow them to work. (New York Times, October 20, 2008) Federal prosecutors, however, have argued in a number of cases that the statute doesn't require the defendant to have knowledge that the identity belonged to another person. (Id.)
On October 20th the U.S. Supreme Court announced that it would hear the case Flores-Figueroa v. U.S. The case will settle the differing appellate interpretations of the U.S. Code's aggravated identity theft provision. (18 USC § 1028A) The issue in the case is whether the prosecution must prove that the defendant in an identity theft case knew the fraudulent identification belonged to somebody else.
The pertinent code section states:
Whoever, during and in relation to any felony violation enumerated in subsection ©, knowingly transfers, possesses, or uses, without lawful authority, a means of identification of another person shall in addition to the punishment provided for such felony, be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 2 years.
In the case before the court, Flores, a native of Mexico illegally present in the U.S., began working at a steel company in East Moline, Illinois, under the assumed name of Horacio Ramirez. Flores told his employer that he wanted to be known as Ignacio C. Flores and that he wanted to change the Social Security and alien registration numbers that the employer had on file for him. He then presented the employer with a counterfeit Social Security card and a counterfeit alien registration card. Both the counterfeit documents contained identification numbers that had been assigned to a different person. These documents were in the petitioner's possession when he was arrested. He was charged with one count of entering the United States without inspection, two counts of misuse of immigration documents, and two counts of aggravated identity theft.
At his trial, Flores argued that the aggravated identity theft charges should be dropped because the government had not proved Flores knew that the Social Security and alien registration numbers he used had been assigned to other people. The trial court rejected that argument, and Flores was convicted on both counts of aggravated identity theft. The Eighth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed and upheld the conviction. (Ignacio Carlos Flores-Figueroa v. United States of America, Brief for the United States of America)
According to the New York Times, defense attorneys argue that federal prosecutors have used the identity theft provision to pressure illegal aliens to plead guilty to lesser immigration violations. They also argue that their clients shouldn't be charged with the offense because these individuals were only seeking documents to allow them to work. (New York Times, October 20, 2008) Federal prosecutors, however, have argued in a number of cases that the statute doesn't require the defendant to have knowledge that the identity belonged to another person. (Id.)