SC Rules on illegal use of SS Numbers

[Wrinkle]

May 4, 10:17 AM EDT


Court rules for immigrant in ID theft case

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court has ruled that an undocumented immigrant who uses a phony Social Security number to get work should not be considered an identity thief unless prosecutors can prove he knew the number belonged to a real person.

The court ruled unanimously Monday in favor of Ignacio Carlos Flores-Figueroa, an undocumented worker from Mexico, who was given an additional two years in prison for aggravated identity theft. He presented his employer with Social Security and alien registration numbers that belonged to other people.

The government argued that prosecutors do not have to offer any proof that a defendant knew the identification belonged to someone else and was not simply made up.

The court, in an opinion written by Justice Stephen Breyer, rejected that argument.

© 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Learn more about our Privacy Policy.

===================================================

Seems one no longer has to assume illegal use of any Government-issued Social Security Number is wrong unless the user knows the number was in use.

...what a laugh.

[cannon_fodder]

Wrinkle, that ruling makes sense if you consider it in the light of a criminal prosecution.  Did the person have the mens rea to commit the crime?  If (s)he didn't know the number belonged to someone else they therefor did not intend to steal anyone's identity. 

I agree that facially the ruling is poor and I think the effect of the ruling will also be poor - but looking at it from the perspective presented to the Court it makes sense. 

[rwarn17588]

The fact it was a unanimous decision by the high court is telling.

That's a pretty split court ideologically. Since all the justices agreed on the basic opinion, it tells me that it was a slam-dunk on constitutional (and legal) grounds.

[sauerkraut]

Just about any SS number will belong to someone, even a made-up number. This was a bad ruling, the illegal alien is still using false I.D.

[Hoss]

Just about any SS number will belong to someone, even a made-up number. This was a bad ruling, the illegal alien is still using false I.D.

Once again, you're wrong.  SS Numbers have whole blocks that are invalid.  How do I know?  I work in a industry that HAS to know.  And also, it's not that difficult to look up what blocks are valid and what blocks aren't for those that have internet access.

Don't get me wrong, I think it was a piss-poor ruling, but do some basic internet searching before you speak of things you don't know.

[Wrinkle]

Wrinkle, that ruling makes sense if you consider it in the light of a criminal prosecution.  Did the person have the mens rea to commit the crime?  If (s)he didn't know the number belonged to someone else they therefor did not intend to steal anyone's identity. 

I agree that facially the ruling is poor and I think the effect of the ruling will also be poor - but looking at it from the perspective presented to the Court it makes sense. 

Oh, I understand the ruling, and the legal implications.

They said one cannot be convicted of "Identity Theft" if they didn't know the number they forged was being used by someone else.

And, I'd support that decision, by itself. What's off here is that use of any SS number not issued to you by the government would need be equally offensive.

If the number were not in use, the crime should be as great, though not necessarily "Identity Theft". Subtle difference.

The intent was not necessarily to steal a particular identity (though, that could be argued, as in a generic 'identity' suitable for employment), it was just as wrong to attempt to seek an identity for the sake of employment illegally.

It's just a question as to what the actual charges are being applied.

[Wrinkle]

I should add that regardless of the numbers' disposition, illegal use of a number already used should carry implications of the 'unintended' consequences of its' use to the actual person issued the number.

Same as drunk driving.

[cannon_fodder]

That depends entirely on the definition of the crime the person was accused of.

Drunk driving is a per se offense, no mens rea required.  One must assume the statute is drafted to require an intent.  Hence, the ruling.

I agree with you in principle, I was just pointing out the subtlety to anyone who isn't paying as much attention as you (we) are.

[Conan71]

I would think the use of a fictitious SSN, regardless of whether or not that number belongs to someone else, would fall under a fraud law somewhere as it is a clear attempt to defraud the governement and to circumvent other laws regarding immigration.

[Red Arrow]

If someone uses your SS number, even only to obtain employment, it will cause an income tax problem for you since your SS number will show more income than you made by yourself. The feds (and then the state) will want tax to be paid on the combination of your actual income PLUS what the person using your number made.  It will be up to you to prove you didn't make the extra $.  Not my personal experience but it is of a friend.

[Conan71]

One W-2 is issued to Bill Smith by Oneok and the other is issued to Javier Gomez by some fruit company in California would be pretty obvious, but I get your point.

[Red Arrow]

One W-2 is issued to Bill Smith by Oneok and the other is issued to Javier Gomez by some fruit company in California would be pretty obvious, but I get your point.

One would think so but it wasn't that easy.  One jurisdiction wouldn't talk to the other, etc. The standard "not our problem" response was used both by location and agency.