Lambert v. California
78 S.Ct. 240 · Supreme Court of the United States · 1958
Facts
Appellant, a resident of Los Angeles for over seven years, had been convicted of forgery, an offense punishable as a felony in California. The Los Angeles Municipal Code required "convicted persons" to register with the Chief of Police if in the city for more than five days, making failure to register a continuing offense. Appellant had not registered under this Code. She was arrested on suspicion of another offense and subsequently charged with violating the registration law. The Court assumed she had no actual knowledge of the registration requirement, as her proof of this defense was refused at trial.
Procedural history
Appellant was charged with violating the registration law, and the trial court denied her objection that the Code violated due process. A jury found her guilty, and she was fined and placed on probation. Her motion for arrest of judgment and a new trial was denied. The Appellate Department of the Superior Court affirmed the judgment, finding no merit to the claim that the ordinance was unconstitutional. The case then came to the Supreme Court on appeal.
Issue
Does a municipal registration act violate due process when applied to a person who has no actual knowledge of their duty to register, and where no showing is made of the probability of such knowledge?
Holding
Yes, the registration provisions of the Los Angeles Municipal Code, as applied here, violate the Due Process requirement of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Rule
While lawmakers have wide latitude to define offenses and exclude elements of knowledge, due process places limits on this power, especially for conduct that is wholly passive. For a conviction under a registration ordinance involving passive conduct, actual knowledge of the duty to register or proof of the probability of such knowledge and subsequent failure to comply are necessary. Without such notice, a person cannot be convicted consistently with due process, as the requirement of notice is engrained in the concept of due process.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener
Case brief last reviewed . Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.