Supreme Court Rules Against Government in Identity-Theft Case

Redress · May 4, 2009

disneydude said:
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.

From what I read, this is only mostly right. The law in question specifically states that the defendant has to "knowingly" steal an identity. I have not read the whole ruling, but the from what I have read so far on it, the word "knowingly" in the law is the issue. With the law worded as it is, SCOTUS had no choice in how they ruled, which is why it was an actual unanimous decision. They did not to my knowledge rule on the global issue on whether the law could be changed to take out the word "knowingly" and then prosecute some one who unknowingly stole an identity by using a random number SSN.

celticlord · May 4, 2009

Harry Guerrilla said:
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.

Apples and oranges, actually.

The intent to distribute is presumed by statute from the quantity itself. No further evidence is needed.

Harry Guerrilla · May 4, 2009

ADK_Forever said:
I'm getting woosey... two agreements with you in one thread... I need fluids... :2wave:

Redress · May 4, 2009

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.

Sigh, you are posting faster, and with better information than me here...

celticlord · May 4, 2009

Harry Guerrilla said:
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.

Again, it goes to statutory construction. By law, if a person dies during the commission of a crime, the person committing the crime is guilty of murder, not involuntary manslaughter.

Harry Guerrilla · May 4, 2009

celticlord said:
Apples and oranges, actually.

The intent to distribute is presumed by statute from the quantity itself. No further evidence is needed.

But honestly how can you deduce that someone has an intent to do so when all it could be is for personal use.

They could alter it to where having any amount means you intend to distribute.

celticlord · May 4, 2009

ADK_Forever said:
I'm getting woosey... two agreements with you in one thread... I need fluids... :2wave:

Indeed....a single malt, preferably a Speyside :mrgreen:

celticlord · May 4, 2009

Harry Guerrilla said:
But honestly how can you deduce that someone has an intent to do so when all it could be is for personal use.

They could alter it to where having any amount means you intend to distribute.

Yes they could. However, that argument is a matter for the legislature, not the courts, unless and until there is a Constitutional dimension to the matter.

disneydude · May 4, 2009

Harry Guerrilla said:
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.

I agree. But if I were a DA I would argue that things such as amount, packaging, lack of paraphernalia, scales, are all indications of intent to sell or distribute.

If a person has 10 rocks....probably not sells. But if they have 100 rocks, individually wrapped, pretty good argument that it is possessed with intent to distribute/sell.

Harry Guerrilla · May 4, 2009

celticlord said:
Yes they could. However, that argument is a matter for the legislature, not the courts, unless and until there is a Constitutional dimension to the matter.

I think they relate very much so.

Law could be so much simpler if lawyers and politico's didn't crap it up so much.

Harry Guerrilla · May 4, 2009

disneydude said:
I agree. But if I were a DA I would argue that things such as amount, packaging, lack of paraphernalia, scales, are all indications of intent to sell or distribute.

If a person has 10 rocks....probably not sells. But if they have 100 rocks, individually wrapped, pretty good argument that it is possessed with intent to distribute/sell.

That would make sense.

The amount doesn't really matter until you get to very, very large quantities.

I think a quarter ounce of Marijuana automatically gets you an intent to distribute.
A quarter ounce isn't very much.

disneydude · May 4, 2009

Harry Guerrilla said:
That would make sense.

The amount doesn't really matter until you get to very, very large quantities.

I think a quarter ounce of Marijuana automatically gets you an intent to distribute.
A quarter ounce isn't very much.

Yeah....1/4 ounce is nothing....but sometimes DA's can be a little overzealous. I've seen them charge possession for sell with as little as 3 rocks here in LA.

Supreme Court Rules Against Government in Identity-Theft Case

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!

celticlord

Well-known member

Harry Guerrilla

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!

celticlord

Well-known member

Harry Guerrilla

celticlord

Well-known member

celticlord

Well-known member

disneydude

Harry Guerrilla

Harry Guerrilla

disneydude

Supreme Court Rules Against Government in Identity-Theft Case

Liberal Fascist For Life!

Well-known member

Liberal Fascist For Life!

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency