California Supreme Court Defines Difference Between Identity Theft And Theft

Details

Publish Date:
March 3, 2020
Author(s):
Source:
San Francisco Chronicle
Related Person(s):

Summary

A 2014 initiative that reduced theft crimes to misdemeanors if they involved nonviolently taking $950 or less from a business doesn’t apply to stealing property by using someone else’s identity, which remains a felony, the state Supreme Court ruled Monday.

Reversing lower-court rulings, the court unanimously said the crime of using personal identifying information without authorization is not a theft — even if it results in a theft — and therefore is not covered by the leniency provisions of Proposition 47.

The law prohibiting unauthorized use of personal identifying information “protects primarily the person or entity whose information was unlawfully used without consent,” Justice Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar said in the 7-0 ruling. By contrast, he said, laws against shoplifting and other types of theft seek to protect the property owners.

A state appeals court upheld the ruling, citing the state Supreme Court’s 2017 decision that reduced a defendant’s conviction to misdemeanor shoplifting for cashing checks that used the check-holder’s bank account information. But although Jimenez’s actions were similar to those of the defendant in that case, Cuéllar said, the crime he was convicted of committing — illegal use of private identity information — is a separate offense not covered by Prop.47.

Read More