By Suzia van Swol, University of New Mexico-Talk Radio News Service
Ignacio Flores-Figueroa, a Mexican citizen, gave his employer a fake Social Security number and alien registration cards which had his name but numbers belonging to other people. He was arrested and charged with two immigration offenses and aggravated identity theft. The key word in the statute is the adverb “knowingly” because Flores said that it could not be proved that he knew the fake numbers belonged to other people instead of being made up of random digits. Justice Breyer, who delivered the unanimous decision to the court, cranked up appetites in the courtroom today when he made the analogy that when “knowingly” eating a B.L.T sandwich, it is fair to assume that one is aware it will contain bacon, lettuce and tomato. A federal statute imposed a mandatory two year sentence on anyone who “knowingly” uses an identity belonging to another person. The Supreme Court decided that prosecutors must prove that Flores didn’t know the false documents belonged to someone else. The Supreme Court limited the use of the identity theft law in a unanimous court decision, ensuring that the law can no longer be used against workers who need false identification to get a job unless they use someone else's I.D.
Supreme Court Rules On Identity Theft
Ignacio Flores-Figueroa, a Mexican citizen, gave his employer a fake Social Security number and alien registration cards which had his name but numbers belonging to other people. He was arrested and charged with two immigration offenses and aggravated identity theft. The key word in the statute is the adverb “knowingly” because Flores said that it could not be proved that he knew the fake numbers belonged to other people instead of being made up of random digits.
Justice Breyer, who delivered the unanimous decision to the court, cranked up appetites in the courtroom today when he made the analogy that when “knowingly” eating a B.L.T sandwich, it is fair to assume that one is aware it will contain bacon, lettuce and tomato.
A federal statute imposed a mandatory two year sentence on anyone who “knowingly” uses an identity belonging to another person. The Supreme Court decided that prosecutors must prove that Flores didn’t know the false documents belonged to someone else.
The Supreme Court limited the use of the identity theft law in a unanimous court decision, ensuring that the law can no longer be used against workers who need false identification to get a job unless they use someone else's I.D.