The Colorado Supreme Court is currently considering whether to vacate a trial court injunction which stopped the state from prosecuting up to 1,300 identity theft cases by illegal aliens. The ACLU brought the challenge not because the charges are false but because, it says, the warrant to obtain the evidence was unconstitutional.

The facts for this article, but not the legal conclusions, come from an article in the Dallas Morning News on 5 November, 2009. It concerns an appeal to the Colorado Supreme Court from injunctions obtained by the ACLU against prosecution of certain identity theft cases.

The cases began when a local resident found out that his identity, and Social Security number, had been stolen and were being illegally used. The theft was traced to a local tax preparation firm that specialized in doing tax work for people of Mexican heritage who may or may not be in the United States legally.

A court issued a search warrant on the firm. Once that warrant was carried out, information was obtained which could lead to identification of up to 1,300 illegal aliens who were using Social Security numbers that did not belong to them. After dozens of charges had been brought, the ACLU sought an injunction in Weld County against further use of the results of the search on the grounds that the search was unconstitutional.

The district court granted the injunction, and that action is now before the Colorado Supreme Court. The ACLU objection was that the search warrant “did not name” the people who had stolen other people’s identity. But that misses the whole point of ID theft in the first place. The thief is stealing someone else’s identity because their own, real identity would reveal that they are in the country illegally and would (or at least should) be removed if their identities became known.

Identity thieves hide their real names for the same reason that bank robbers wear masks. The ACLU avoids this point because their real purpose is not to defend innocent bystanders. It is to promote by all means necessary an open border between Mexico and the US. But the trial court in Colorado should know better, and it is hoped that the Supreme Court will straighten it out.

An initial crime was committed. It was traced to a certain business. A warrant was issued. Up to 1,300 criminal acts were revealed. The ACLU argues that the illegals who were exposed were “just paying their taxes,” as if that gave them a pass on any other illegal acts. It does not. There is no more right to steal another person’s identity to pay one’s taxes than there is to rob the 7/11 to get money to pay those taxes.

Source on the Net:

https://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/APStories/stories/D9BPKMF03.html