Identity theft in California

Identity theft is defined as willfully obtaining someone’s personal information, and using that information for an unlawful purpose. It is described in Penal Code section 530.5, which provides that having another person’s personal information is not illegal until it is used to commit fraud or other unlawful conduct. The obvious example of identity theft is the taking of a person’s credit card or banking information and using it to buy things. Identity theft can be charged as a felony or misdemeanor, and punishment will depend on that designation:
  • As a misdemeanor, identity theft is punishable by up to one year in county jail, a $1,000 fine or both.
  • As a felony, it is punishable by state prison (up to three years) and a $10,000 fine or both.
A person can also commit identity fraud (as opposed to identity theft) by obtaining a victim’s medical information — usually over the Internet. These crimes are becoming more common as online purchasing has become easier.

Related case summaries

People v. Jimenez
An identity theft conviction under section 530.5 cannot be reclassified as a misdemeanor under Prop 47.A felony conviction for misuse of personal identifying information under Penal Code section 530.5 (a) cannot be reduced to misdemeanor shoplifting under Prop 47 because identity theft is not really a theft. Rather, section 530.5 criminalizes the willful use of someone’s identifying information.id: 26684
Case number S249397 (3/0/2020)

Related categories:

Theft/Shoplifting (105a)
People v. Lee
Evidence did not support the identity theft conviction because there was no evidence that defendant used the victims’ identifying information for an unlawful purpose without their consent. Evidence did not support the defendant’s multiple identify theft convictions under Penal Code section 530.5, subd.(a). There was no evidence that he used the victims’ information for an unlawful purpose where he deposited their checks or accepted their wire transfers. Moreover, he did not use their information without consent. The victims sent him checks or wired money intending that he would get the money. While he did not use the money as promised (and committed theft) he did not use the victim’s identifying information without consent.id: 25242
11 Cal.App.5th 344 (1st Dist. 2017)

Related categories:

Theft, Receiving (204)

About Pat Ford

Pat Ford is a criminal defense lawyer in San Diego who works on appeals in some of the most difficult cases around the state. He has a great record for success and integrity. Pat has also published a criminal case law digest since 1984 that's used by judges and lawyers around the state. He also speaks and writes articles for criminal lawyers as well as consumers interested in the law. The consumer-related articles are intended to be informative but do not constitute legal advice.

Case of the Day

The case of the day summarizes a current case and is viewed by lawyers and judges around the state every day.

People v. Meza
Geofence search warrants were impermissibly overbroad and violated the particularity requirement of the Fourth Amendment but the good faith exception applied and suppression was not required.Defendants were identified as murder suspects after a geofence search warrant directed to Google revealed cell phones signed in to Google accounts connected to them were in several of the same locations as the victim on the day of the murder. The geofence warrants complied with the California Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 2016 (Cal ECPA) but they violated the particularity requirement of the Fourth Amendment and were impermissibly overbroad as the warrants placed no meaningful restrictions on the police search. However, suppression of the evidence was not required where the officers reasonably relied on the new geofence warrant in good faith.id: 27850
Case number B318310 (4/3/2023)

Related categories:

Exclusionary Rule, generally (good faith exception) (310)
Overbreadth/Staleness (368)