Lambert v. California, 355 U.S. 225 (1957), was a United States Supreme Court case regarding the defense of ignorance of the law when there is no legal notice.[1] The court held that when one is required to register one's presence, failure to register may be punished only when there is a probability that the accused party had knowledge of the law before committing the crime of failing to register.
When applied to a person who has no actual knowledge of his duty to register, and no showing is made of the probability of such knowledge, the ordinance violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Lambert had previously been convicted of forgery, a felony in California. She was unaware that a Los Angelescity ordinance required that she, being a felon, register if she remained in the city for more than five days. The ordinance stipulated that she, as a convicted criminal, could be fined $500 and sentenced to up to six months in jail for every day that she remained in the city after the five-day limit. When she was arrested on suspicion of committing another offense, she was convicted for failure to register. As Lambert was not allowed to use her lack of knowledge as a defense, she was convicted, fined $250, and sentenced to three years probation. Lambert appealed her case, arguing that she had no knowledge that she had to register her name and that convicting her would deprive her of due process under the Fourteenth Amendment.[2]
Decisionedit
The Supreme Court reversed Lambert's conviction by holding that knowledge or probability of knowledge of a statute is required to convict someone of a notice offense. Justice William Douglas, who delivered the majority opinion for the Court, wrote:
Where a person did not know of the duty to register and where there was no proof of the probability of such knowledge, he may not be convicted consistently with due process.[2]
However, the Court did not overturn the right of states and municipalities to force occupants to register for a given purpose. The Court held that because the ordinance that forced convicted felons to register was not accompanied by any action, and there were no circumstances that would lead felons to be aware of their duty to register, the ordinance was unconstitutional. The Justice continued:
Registration laws are common, and their range is wide. Many such laws are akin to licensing statutes in that they pertain to the regulation of business activities. But the present ordinance is entirely different. Violation of its provisions is unaccompanied by any activity whatever, mere presence in the city being the test. Moreover, circumstances which might move one to inquire as to the necessity of registration are completely lacking. At most, the ordinance is but a law enforcement technique designed for the convenience of law enforcement agencies through which a list of the names and addresses of felons then residing in a given community is compiled. The disclosure is merely a compilation of former convictions already publicly recorded in the jurisdiction where obtained. Nevertheless, this appellant, on first becoming aware of her duty to register, was given no opportunity to comply with the law and avoid its penalty, even though her default was entirely innocent. She could but suffer the consequences of the ordinance, namely, conviction with the imposition of heavy criminal penalties thereunder. We believe that actual knowledge of the duty to register or proof of the probability of such knowledge and subsequent failure to comply are necessary before a conviction under the ordinance can stand.[3]
Significanceedit
This case is an exception to the legal principle ignorantia legis non excusat ("the ignorance of the law is not a suitable excuse for breaking it") because this case deals with the absence of "actual knowledge" (Lambert v. California, Page 355 U. S. 229) of a law that came about from a "wholly passive" (Lambert v. California, Page 355 U. S. 228) conduct, whereby there was "no proof of the probability of such knowledge" because the absence of "actual knowledge" of the law came about from a "wholly passive" conduct.
Booke, A. F. II (1992). "When Ignorance of the Law Became an Excuse: Lambert and Its Progeny". American Journal of Criminal Law. 19 (2): 279–312. ISSN 0092-2315.
External linksedit
Text of Lambert v. California, 355U.S. 225 (1957) is available from:JustiaLibrary of CongressOyez (oral argument audio)
January 01, 1970
lambert, california, 1957, united, states, supreme, court, case, regarding, defense, ignorance, when, there, legal, notice, court, held, that, when, required, register, presence, failure, register, punished, only, when, there, probability, that, accused, party. Lambert v California 355 U S 225 1957 was a United States Supreme Court case regarding the defense of ignorance of the law when there is no legal notice 1 The court held that when one is required to register one s presence failure to register may be punished only when there is a probability that the accused party had knowledge of the law before committing the crime of failing to register Lambert v CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United StatesArgued April 3 1957Reargued October 16 17 1957Decided December 16 1957Full case nameLambert v CaliforniaCitations355 U S 225 more 78 S Ct 240 2 L Ed 2d 228 1957 U S LEXIS 3ArgumentOral argumentHoldingWhen applied to a person who has no actual knowledge of his duty to register and no showing is made of the probability of such knowledge the ordinance violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment Court membershipChief Justice Earl Warren Associate Justices Hugo Black Felix FrankfurterWilliam O Douglas Harold H BurtonTom C Clark John M Harlan IIWilliam J Brennan Jr Charles E WhittakerCase opinionsMajorityDouglas joined by Warren Black Clark BrennanDissentBurtonDissentFrankfurter joined by Harlan WhittakerLaws appliedU S Const Amend XIV Wikisource has original text related to this article Lambert v California Contents 1 Background 2 Decision 3 Significance 4 See also 5 References 6 Further reading 7 External linksBackground editLambert had previously been convicted of forgery a felony in California She was unaware that a Los Angeles city ordinance required that she being a felon register if she remained in the city for more than five days The ordinance stipulated that she as a convicted criminal could be fined 500 and sentenced to up to six months in jail for every day that she remained in the city after the five day limit When she was arrested on suspicion of committing another offense she was convicted for failure to register As Lambert was not allowed to use her lack of knowledge as a defense she was convicted fined 250 and sentenced to three years probation Lambert appealed her case arguing that she had no knowledge that she had to register her name and that convicting her would deprive her of due process under the Fourteenth Amendment 2 Decision editThe Supreme Court reversed Lambert s conviction by holding that knowledge or probability of knowledge of a statute is required to convict someone of a notice offense Justice William Douglas who delivered the majority opinion for the Court wrote Where a person did not know of the duty to register and where there was no proof of the probability of such knowledge he may not be convicted consistently with due process 2 However the Court did not overturn the right of states and municipalities to force occupants to register for a given purpose The Court held that because the ordinance that forced convicted felons to register was not accompanied by any action and there were no circumstances that would lead felons to be aware of their duty to register the ordinance was unconstitutional The Justice continued Registration laws are common and their range is wide Many such laws are akin to licensing statutes in that they pertain to the regulation of business activities But the present ordinance is entirely different Violation of its provisions is unaccompanied by any activity whatever mere presence in the city being the test Moreover circumstances which might move one to inquire as to the necessity of registration are completely lacking At most the ordinance is but a law enforcement technique designed for the convenience of law enforcement agencies through which a list of the names and addresses of felons then residing in a given community is compiled The disclosure is merely a compilation of former convictions already publicly recorded in the jurisdiction where obtained Nevertheless this appellant on first becoming aware of her duty to register was given no opportunity to comply with the law and avoid its penalty even though her default was entirely innocent She could but suffer the consequences of the ordinance namely conviction with the imposition of heavy criminal penalties thereunder We believe that actual knowledge of the duty to register or proof of the probability of such knowledge and subsequent failure to comply are necessary before a conviction under the ordinance can stand 3 Significance editThis case is an exception to the legal principle ignorantia legis non excusat the ignorance of the law is not a suitable excuse for breaking it because this case deals with the absence of actual knowledge Lambert v California Page 355 U S 229 of a law that came about from a wholly passive Lambert v California Page 355 U S 228 conduct whereby there was no proof of the probability of such knowledge because the absence of actual knowledge of the law came about from a wholly passive conduct See also editIndeterminacy debate in legal theory List of United States Supreme Court cases volume 355 Symbol grounding problemReferences edit Criminal Law 7th edition 2012 John Kaplan Robert Weisberg Guyora Binder a b Bonnie Richard J Coughlin Anne M 1997 Criminal Law Westbury NY The Foundation Press pp 159 161 ISBN 978 1 56662 448 0 Lambert v California 355 U S 225 1957 Further reading editBooke A F II 1992 When Ignorance of the Law Became an Excuse Lambert and Its Progeny American Journal of Criminal Law 19 2 279 312 ISSN 0092 2315 External links editText of Lambert v California 355 U S 225 1957 is available from Justia Library of Congress Oyez oral argument audio Retrieved from https en wikipedia org w index php title Lambert v California amp oldid 1183330883, wikipedia, wiki, book, books, library,
