Breyer Mulls Cheese Sandwiches in Ruling for Immigrant in ID Theft Case
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that an immigrant who made up a Social Security number to obtain work is not guilty of ID theft if he had no knowledge the identity belonged to a real person.
The 9-0 decision found for immigrant Ignacio Carlos Flores-Figueroa, who was sentenced to an additional two years in prison under a federal ID theft statute, the Associated Press reports. The federal statute requires a two-year prison term for anyone convicted of “knowingly” using the identification of another person.
The opinion (PDF) by Justice Stephen G. Breyer considered whether the word “knowingly” in the government statute that bars unlawful transfer of identities applies to all elements of the identity theft crime, so as to require knowing that another person’s identity has been stolen. Breyer concludes it does, and uses some simple examples to illustrate.
“If a child knowingly takes a toy that belongs to his sibling, we assume that the child not only knows that he is taking something, but that he also knows that what he is taking is a toy and that the toy belongs to his sibling,” Breyer writes. “If we say that someone knowingly ate a sandwich with cheese, we normally assume that the person knew both that he was eating a sandwich and that it contained cheese.”
Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Antonin Scalia wrote separately to express qualms that Breyer’s opinion was too broad in its wording. “I suspect that the court’s opinion will be cited for the proposition that the mens rea of a federal criminal statute nearly always applies to every element of the offense,” Alito writes. Scalia’s concurrence was joined by Justice Clarence Thomas.
The case is Flores-Figueroa v. United States.
Hat tip to SCOTUSblog.