SUPREME COURT LIMITS USE OF AGGRAVATED IDENTITY THEFT STATUTE

The Supreme Court ruled in Flores-Figueroa v. United States that to convict someone under the aggravated identity theft statute the government must prove that the defendant knew that they were using the ID of another individual.

The aggravated identify theft statute mandates that defendants be given an additional two year sentence on top of the sentence they would normally receive when they use a false ID in connection with the violation of a specified list of crimes.

Specifically it ruled that “knowingly transfers, possesses, or uses, without lawful authority, a means of identification of another person.” means that the defendant not only must knowingly possess or use identification but that the defendant, in order to be convicted, must know that the identification is that of another person. In practice it means that an individual who makes up a nine digit Social Security number that just so happens to be that of another person cannot be convicted unless they know that the Social Security number belongs to another person.

This does not mean that people using false ID’s won’t be punished. There are plenty of laws on the books to do that. But it does mean that the additional two years for an aggravated identity theft will generally be saved for those who steal the ID of another and not those who are unlucky enough when inventing an ID to invent an ID that is legitimately in use. Also, it will prevent prosecutors from coercing a plea from an illegal immigrant, such as Flores-Figueroa who invented a nine digit Social Security number to give to an employer to get a job, by threatening them with an amended indictment charging an aggravated identity theft violation.