State v. Martinez
| Decision Date | 09 June 2017 |
| Docket Number | No. 15-0671,15-0671 |
| Citation | 896 N.W.2d 737 |
| Parties | STATE of Iowa, Appellee, v. Martha Aracely MARTINEZ, Appellant. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Philip B. Mears of Mears Law Office, Iowa City, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Darrel Mullins, Assistant Attorney General, and Alan R. Ostergren, County Attorney, for appellee.
Lori T. Chesser and Sarah E. Crane of Davis Brown Law Firm, Des Moines, for amici curiae DREAM Iowa, CASA of Sioux County, Immigrant Allies of Marshalltown, Diocese of Davenport Immigration Program, Casa Latina Mary Treglia Community House, Southwest Iowa Latino Resource Center, and Justice for Our Neighbors.
John A. Hathaway of Kasaby & Nicholls, LLC, Omaha, Nebraska, Bram T.B. Elias, University of Iowa College of Law Clinical Law Programs, Iowa City, and Rita Bettis of ACLU of Iowa, Des Moines, for amicus curiae ACLU of Iowa.
In this case, we are called upon to determine if an undocumented noncitizen brought to Iowa as an eleven-year-old child by her parents, educated in Iowa public schools, who has lived in Iowa continuously, who is a mother of four children who are citizens of the United States, and who applied for and was granted deferred action under the Department of Homeland Security's Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA)1 program, may be prosecuted by State authorities for using false documents to obtain federal employment authorization even though federal law pervasively regulates employment of undocumented noncitizens. The answer to this question is no.
Martha Martinez came to Muscatine with her parents in 1997 when she was eleven years old. She attended Muscatine public schools and worked for several different employers in Muscatine County.
When she was seventeen years old, Martinez applied for and obtained an Iowa driver's license. She used a birth certificate in the name of Diana Castaneda, a person with a social security number, to obtain the license. She renewed the license in 2008.
In 2013, Martinez used her fictitious driver's license and a social security card in the same name to obtain employment at Packer Sanitation, a business located in Muscatine County. The documents were used to obtain what is referred to as I-9 paperwork.
Also in 2013, Martinez applied for and received temporary lawful immigration status from the Department of Homeland Security pursuant to the DACA program. Because she now had temporary lawful immigration status, she was able to obtain work authorization in her own name from the Department of Homeland Security.
Because of her lawful status, Martinez was now eligible, under Iowa law, to obtain an Iowa driver's license in her own name. In March 2014, she applied for a license in her own name, using her newly issued social security card.
The Iowa Department of Transportation (IDOT), apparently using facial recognition software, noted a similarity between her photograph taken in 2014 and earlier photographs taken when she obtained her driver's license in 2003 and 2008. As a result, IDOT commenced an investigation.
According to the notes of the IDOT investigator, a woman appeared at the Iowa City drivers' license station on May 2, 2003, with a California birth certificate in the name of Diana Castaneda. She presented two rent receipts as proof of residency in West Liberty. On October 28, 2008, a woman appeared at the Iowa City drivers' license station and applied for an Iowa ID using the name of Diana Castaneda.
On March 6, 2014, a woman appeared at the Iowa City drivers' license station and applied for an Iowa driver's license. The person presented an ID and employment authorization card in the name of Martha Martinez. The photograph of Martinez, however, appeared to match the photograph of Diana Castaneda from March 2, 2003, and October 28, 2008.
The investigator determined that wages were being obtained by Diana Castaneda at Packer Sanitation. The investigator contacted Packer Sanitation and obtained Diana Castaneda's I-9, copies of her Iowa ID, social security card, and payroll history showing she obtained wages in excess of $1000. The investigator contacted immigration authorities and learned that Martinez had a valid employment authorization card.
The investigator contacted Martinez by phone. Martinez admitted she had obtained the false IDs in 2003 and 2008. She told the investigator she came to the United States as a child and now had three children and was pregnant with a fourth child. She borrowed a birth certificate in the name of Diana Castaneda but did not know her. She had been recently working but had quit due to her pregnancy. She admitted prior employment under the name and social security number of Diana Castaneda. The investigator informed Martinez that he would recommend she be charged with identity theft. The investigator thanked Martinez for being honest and cooperative.
The State filed two criminal charges against Martinez. Count I alleged the crime of identity theft under Iowa Code section 715A.8 (2013). This Code provision states, "A person commits the offense of identity theft if the person fraudulently uses or attempts to fraudulently use identification information of another person, with the intent to obtain credit, property, services, or other benefit." Iowa Code § 715A.8(2). If the value of the credit, property, or services exceeds one thousand dollars, the person commits a class "D" felony. Id. § 715A.8(3). If the value of the credit, property, or services does not exceed one thousand dollars, the person commits an aggravated misdemeanor. Id. According to the minutes of testimony, the basis for the intent to obtain "credit, property, or services" was employment at Packer Sanitation earning wages in excess of $1000.
Count II alleged the crime of forgery under Iowa Code section 715A.2(1). This Code provision declares that a person is guilty of the crime of forgery if, with intent to defraud or injure anyone, a person "[m]akes, completes, executes, authenticates, issues, or transfers a writing so that it purports to be the act of another who did not authorize that act." Id. § 715A.2(1)(b ). The provision further provides that forgery is a class "D" felony if the writing is or purports to be "[a] document prescribed by statute, rule, or regulation for entry into or as evidence of authorized stay or employment in the United States." Id. § 715A.2(2)(a )(4).
Martinez filed a motion to dismiss. Citing Arizona v. United States , Martinez argued that federal law preempted her prosecution under the Iowa identity theft and forgery statutes, both on their face and as applied. 567 U.S. 387, 415–16, 132 S.Ct. 2492, 2510, 183 L.Ed.2d 351 (2012). The State resisted. The State distinguished Arizona , noting that in that case, the Arizona statute specifically criminalized failure to comply with federal alien registration requirements while the statutes under which Martinez was charged are independent of federal law.
The district court denied the motion to dismiss. According to the court, the charges of identity theft and forgery were "state crimes independent of Defendant's immigration status." In prosecuting Martinez, the court stated, the State was not acting to enforce or attack federal immigration law. Therefore, Martinez's prosecution was not preempted by federal law.
Martinez sought interlocutory review. We granted the application.
1. Introduction. "The Government of the United States has broad, undoubted power over the subject of immigration and the status of aliens." Id. at 394, 132 S.Ct. at 2498. This broad authority is in part based upon the federal government's power to "establish a[ ] uniform Rule of Naturalization." Id. (quoting U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 4 ). It is also based upon the federal government's inherent power as a sovereign to control and conduct relations with foreign governments. Id. As demonstrated by an amicus brief in Arizona filed by sixteen nations, immigration policy can affect trade, investment, tourism, and diplomatic relations for the entire Nation as well as the perceptions and expectations of aliens on this country who seek full protection of its law. See Mot. of Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru and Uruguay for Leave to Join the United Mexican States as Amici Curiae in Supp. of Resp't at 6, Arizona , 567 U.S. 387, 132 S.Ct. 2492, 2499–2500 (2012). Current national and international debate regarding building a wall on our southern border and the circumstances under which noncitizens from other nations may enter the United States, along with discussions about who should pay for the wall, has an impact on domestic immigration and international relations.
2. Early regulation and plenary authority. The United States Supreme Court has observed that the supremacy of national power in the general field of foreign affairs—including immigration, naturalization, and deportation—is made clear by the United States Constitution. Hinesv. Davidowitz , 312 U.S. 52, 62, 61 S.Ct. 399, 401–02, 85 L.Ed. 581 (1941). Yet, until 1891, no comprehensive immigration legislation existed, and a number of states enacted discriminatory legislation. See Kevin J. Fandl, Putting States Out of the Immigration Law Enforcement Business , 9 Harv. L. & Pol'y Rev. 529, 530–31 (2015) [hereinafter Fandl]. Responding to discriminatory legislation against Chinese aliens, the United States Supreme Court in Chy Lung v. Freeman , 92 U.S. 275, 280, 23 L.Ed. 550 (1875), and Fong Yue Ting v. United States , 149 U.S. 698, 707, 13 S.Ct. 1016, 1019, 37 L.Ed. 905 (1893), emphasized the need for "absolute and unqualified" power to deport aliens in the interest of national sovereignty. Fandl, 9 Harv. L. & Pol'y Rev. at...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Garcia
...Garcia, an unauthorized alien, for identity theft related to false documentation supplied to his employer. See State v. Martinez , 896 N.W.2d 737, 755–56 (Iowa 2017).The State in this case attempts to dodge field preemption by noting the district court did not admit the I–9 form completed a......
-
Godfrey v. State
...the legislature expressly preempts common law or other fields of law, there is no problem of statutory interpretation. State v. Martinez , 896 N.W.2d 737, 763 (Iowa 2017). The fighting issue in the preemption area is when the legislature is silent but has enacted a sufficiently comprehensiv......
- Diaz v. State
-
Griffioen v. Cedar Rapids & Iowa City Ry. Co.
...preemptive language. When the question is the reach of that language, we believe it is one of express preemption. See State v. Martinez , 896 N.W.2d 737, 746 (Iowa 2017).3 The plaintiffs contend that another flood-related case, Emerson , 503 F.3d 1126, supports their position. Although Emer......