We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.
SCOTUS WILL DECIDE MEANING OF IDENTITY THEFT
The aggravated identity theft statute (18 U.S.C. § 1028A) provides in part that anyone who “knowingly transfers, possesses, or uses, without lawful authority, a means of identification of another person shall, in addition to the punishment provided for such felony, be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 2 years.”
Who could be opposed to that? Everyone knows what identity theft is. Computer hacking, tricking old people, credit card skimming… those bums have it coming, and § 1028A is what’s going to give it to them.
Except… as with any good federal statutory idea, there are those people who will run it into the ground. Look at the PATRIOT Act. Everyone in Congress thought the expanded police powers were a wonderful thing, because of course law enforcement would never use those tools against Americans in plain vanilla criminal cases. It was only the terrorists who needed to look out.
The same with identity theft. You may think you know what identity theft is, using some other person’s identity in the process of committing another crime. David Dubin was convicted of Medicaid fraud. He was also convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 1028A for aggravated identity theft, Federal prosecutors contend that Dubin’s use of his patient’s name on false Medicaid claims violated the aggravated identity statute, adding an extra two years to his one-year sentence for fraud.
Dubin’s conviction and sentence were upheld by the 5th Circuit in a very divided en banc decision, but last week, the Supreme Court granted review.
In an amicus brief supporting grant of certiorari, The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers complained that the 5th Circuit, “disregarding this Court’s directive, the reasoning of the majority of its sister circuits that have considered the issue, and the statute’s title and unmistakable purpose, the 5th Circuit adopted the broadest possible reading of Sec. 1028A to bring appellant’s conduct within the statute. This approach defies common sense and sanctions the ill-advised prosecutorial overreach that this Court has continually rejected.”
The case will be decided by the end of next June.
Dubin v. United States, Case No. 22-10, 2022 U.S. LEXIS 4925 (Nov. 10, 2022) (certiorari granted)
– Thomas L. Root