303:
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.
31:
318:("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.
269:
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
268:
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
302:
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
297:
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
245:. 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.
109:
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
511:
293:
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.
285:
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.
274:
220:
459:
332:
74:
516:
506:
521:
389:
531:
327:
35:
165:
536:
479:
314:
526:
357:
234:
337:
298:
to be aware of their duty to register, the ordinance was unconstitutional. The
Justice continued:
177:
169:
463:
66:
238:
8:
81:
97:
541:
470:
286:
153:
145:
436:
385:
141:
69:
405:
361:
265:
500:
440:
365:
157:
270:
262:
125:
258:
133:
85:
488:
423:
Booke, A. F. II (1992). "When
Ignorance of the Law Became an Excuse:
254:
242:
30:
289:, who delivered the majority opinion for the Court, wrote:
384:. Westbury, NY: The Foundation Press. pp. 159–161.
379:
512:
United States
Supreme Court cases of the Warren Court
333:
List of United States
Supreme Court cases, volume 355
312:This case is an exception to the legal principle
498:
194:Douglas, joined by Warren, Black, Clark, Brennan
380:Bonnie, Richard J.; Coughlin, Anne M. (1997).
406:"Lambert v. California, 355 U.S. 225 (1957)"
375:
373:
253:Lambert had previously been convicted of
210:Frankfurter, joined by Harlan, Whittaker
499:
370:
422:
18:1957 United States Supreme Court case
328:Indeterminacy debate in legal theory
13:
517:United States due process case law
416:
36:Supreme Court of the United States
14:
553:
507:United States Supreme Court cases
466:225 (1957) is available from:
448:
356:Criminal Law, 7th edition, 2012;
429:American Journal of Criminal Law
29:
307:
522:1957 in United States case law
398:
350:
237:case regarding the defense of
1:
343:
248:
233:, 355 U.S. 225 (1957), was a
315:ignorantia legis non excusat
45:Reargued October 16–17, 1957
7:
532:Legal history of California
321:
280:
235:United States Supreme Court
10:
558:
489:Oyez (oral argument audio)
261:. She was unaware that a
219:
214:
206:
198:
190:
185:
119:
114:
108:
103:
93:
61:
51:
47:Decided December 16, 1957
42:
28:
23:
338:Symbol grounding problem
287:Justice William Douglas
241:when there is no legal
537:History of Los Angeles
305:
295:
221:U.S. Const. Amend. XIV
170:William J. Brennan Jr.
456:Lambert v. California
300:
291:
230:Lambert v. California
56:Lambert v. California
24:Lambert v. California
275:Fourteenth Amendment
239:ignorance of the law
178:Charles E. Whittaker
43:Argued April 3, 1957
480:Library of Congress
527:1957 in California
427:and Its Progeny".
146:William O. Douglas
130:Associate Justices
391:978-1-56662-448-0
226:
225:
166:John M. Harlan II
142:Felix Frankfurter
80:78 S. Ct. 240, 2
549:
493:
487:
484:
478:
475:
469:
444:
410:
409:
402:
396:
395:
377:
368:
354:
154:Harold H. Burton
115:Court membership
33:
32:
21:
20:
557:
556:
552:
551:
550:
548:
547:
546:
497:
496:
491:
485:
482:
476:
473:
467:
451:
419:
417:Further reading
414:
413:
404:
403:
399:
392:
378:
371:
362:Robert Weisberg
355:
351:
346:
324:
310:
283:
251:
168:
156:
144:
89:
46:
44:
38:
19:
12:
11:
5:
555:
545:
544:
539:
534:
529:
524:
519:
514:
509:
495:
494:
450:
449:External links
447:
446:
445:
435:(2): 279–312.
418:
415:
412:
411:
397:
390:
369:
348:
347:
345:
342:
341:
340:
335:
330:
323:
320:
309:
306:
282:
279:
266:city ordinance
257:, a felony in
250:
247:
224:
223:
217:
216:
212:
211:
208:
204:
203:
200:
196:
195:
192:
188:
187:
183:
182:
181:
180:
131:
128:
123:
117:
116:
112:
111:
106:
105:
101:
100:
95:
91:
90:
79:
63:
59:
58:
53:
52:Full case name
49:
48:
40:
39:
34:
26:
25:
17:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
554:
543:
540:
538:
535:
533:
530:
528:
525:
523:
520:
518:
515:
513:
510:
508:
505:
504:
502:
490:
481:
472:
465:
461:
457:
453:
452:
442:
438:
434:
430:
426:
421:
420:
407:
401:
393:
387:
383:
376:
374:
367:
366:Guyora Binder
363:
359:
353:
349:
339:
336:
334:
331:
329:
326:
325:
319:
317:
316:
304:
299:
294:
290:
288:
278:
276:
272:
267:
264:
260:
256:
246:
244:
240:
236:
232:
231:
222:
218:
213:
209:
205:
201:
197:
193:
189:
186:Case opinions
184:
179:
175:
171:
167:
163:
159:
155:
151:
147:
143:
139:
135:
132:
129:
127:
124:
122:Chief Justice
121:
120:
118:
113:
107:
102:
99:
98:Oral argument
96:
92:
87:
83:
77:
76:
71:
68:
64:
60:
57:
54:
50:
41:
37:
27:
22:
16:
455:
432:
428:
424:
400:
382:Criminal Law
381:
352:
313:
311:
308:Significance
301:
296:
292:
284:
252:
229:
228:
227:
215:Laws applied
173:
161:
158:Tom C. Clark
149:
137:
73:
55:
15:
358:John Kaplan
271:due process
263:Los Angeles
126:Earl Warren
501:Categories
344:References
273:under the
259:California
249:Background
134:Hugo Black
110:Amendment.
86:U.S. LEXIS
84:228, 1957
542:Ignorance
441:0092-2315
82:L. Ed. 2d
62:Citations
454:Text of
322:See also
281:Decision
191:Majority
94:Argument
425:Lambert
255:forgery
207:Dissent
199:Dissent
104:Holding
492:
486:
483:
477:
474:
471:Justia
468:
439:
388:
243:notice
202:Burton
176:
174:·
172:
164:
162:·
160:
152:
150:·
148:
140:
138:·
136:
462:
464:U.S.
437:ISSN
386:ISBN
75:more
67:U.S.
65:355
460:355
70:225
503::
458:,
433:19
431:.
372:^
364:,
360:,
277:.
443:.
408:.
394:.
88:3
78:)
72:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.