DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**hujdrftgkas** · 12-03-2010, 03:42 PM

The Supreme Court case discussed in the first post is Flores-Figueroa v. U.S, 129 S.Ct. 1886 (2009). There, the accused was charged with "aggravated identity theft" which requires proof that the offender “knowingly transfers, possesses, or uses, without lawful authority, a means of identification of another person.” The Court addressed the question of whether the Government has to show that the accused knew that the numbers on the documents he used belonged to someone else. The court held that the statute says what it says, and that the Government was wrong to make that particular charge. All justices agreed on the result.

12-03-2010, 03:42 PM	#12
hujdrftgkas Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 525 Senior Member	The Supreme Court case discussed in the first post is Flores-Figueroa v. U.S, 129 S.Ct. 1886 (2009). There, the accused was charged with "aggravated identity theft" which requires proof that the offender “knowingly transfers, possesses, or uses, without lawful authority, a means of identification of another person.” The Court addressed the question of whether the Government has to show that the accused knew that the numbers on the documents he used belonged to someone else. The court held that the statute says what it says, and that the Government was wrong to make that particular charge. All justices agreed on the result.
	Quote