Identity Theft Statutes: Which Will Protect Americans the Most?
Catherine Pastrikos · Albany law review · 2004
INTRODUCTION Imagine opening up your mail and finding a credit card statement demanding payment of thousands of dollars for items you never bought. Or, imagine getting pulled over on a neighborhood street for traveling a couple of miles over speed limit only to end up getting arrested, strip searched, and taken to jail due to an outstanding arrest warrant for drugs and gun charges that someone else committed in your name. Unfortunately, for too many Americans, these nightmarish scenarios have become a reality. As crime of identity theft has swept nation, thousands of victims have been left with damaged credit, a criminal record, and emotional distress. (1) With advent of Internet, travels across globe at lightning speed. (2) Identity thieves use information--such as names, social security numbers, and birth dates--to commit frauds or crimes in someone else's name. As a result, state and federal governments have passed laws in an attempt to punish perpetrators and to deter others from committing these crimes in future. Each law is different, and each law takes a different approach to combat problem. This Comment compares and contrasts four different identity theft statutes, and ultimately proposes an alternative statute that combines strengths of existing statutes. This proposed alternative statute includes additional provisions which provide more effective solutions to identity theft problem in America. I. ARIZONA'S IDENTITY THEFT STATUTE The earliest identity theft statute adopted was in 1996 by State of Arizona. (3) This statute made it unlawful for a person to knowingly take[] or use[] any identifying of another person, without consent of that other person. (4) To violate statute, identity thief must have the intent to obtain or use other person's identity for any unlawful purpose or to cause loss to a person. (5) Finally, statute states that a victim is person identifying is taken or used without consent, whether or not victim actually suffers any economic loss as a result of offense. (6) In codifying identity theft statute, Arizona Legislature sought to warn criminals of serious nature of this offense by labeling it a Class 4 felony. (7) This classification translates into a sentence of between one-and-one-half and three years in prison for first time offenders (8) and between three and twelve years for repeat offenders. (9) The statute's simple language and relatively short provisions address most acts that could be considered identity theft crimes. First, term personal identifying information (10) is extremely broad and, although never interpreted by courts of Arizona, could be used to include most government issued items. Second, statute criminalizes any attempt to obtain a person's identifying information, whether or not victim actually suffers economic loss. (11) This provision serves a two-fold purpose: it broadens class of people susceptible to prosecution, and serves as a deterrent to those considering committing crime of identity theft. Finally, it is important to note that statute specifically limits class of victims of identity theft to persons whose identifying was taken or used. (12) The Arizona statute does not include banks or businesses that suffer financial loss as a result of fraudulent transaction. (13) This limitation is both a strength and a weakness. By limiting victims of identity theft to individuals, provision creates a private cause of action only for individuals whose identifying was stolen. The status of identity theft victim, as defined by statute, may give a person more credibility with credit-reporting agencies when attempting to clear their credit. …