Lambert v. California
355 U.S. 225 (1957)
Rule of Law:
Where a person's conduct is wholly passive, a statute that makes it a crime to fail to act violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment if it is applied to a person who had no actual knowledge of the duty to act and there is no proof of the probability of such knowledge.
Facts:
- A Los Angeles Municipal Code ordinance required any person convicted of a felony to register with the Chief of Police if they remained in the city for more than five days.
- Lambert had been a resident of Los Angeles for over seven years.
- Within that period, Lambert was convicted in Los Angeles of forgery, an offense classified as a felony in California.
- Lambert did not register with the police as required by the municipal ordinance.
- Lambert's failure to register was an act of omission, and her circumstances were not such that they would have prompted an inquiry into the existence of the registration requirement.
Procedural Posture:
- Lambert was charged in a California trial court with violating a Los Angeles registration ordinance.
- At trial, the court refused to admit evidence that Lambert had no knowledge of the ordinance.
- A jury found Lambert guilty, and she was fined $250 and placed on probation for three years.
- The trial court denied Lambert's motion for arrest of judgment and a new trial.
- Lambert appealed to the Appellate Department of the Superior Court of California, which affirmed the conviction, holding the ordinance was constitutional.
- Lambert then appealed to the United States Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a local ordinance that criminalizes a convicted felon's failure to register with the police violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment when applied to a person who had no actual knowledge of the registration duty and where no proof of the probability of such knowledge exists?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Douglas
Yes. A conviction under the ordinance violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment when applied to a person who had no actual knowledge of the duty to register and where there is no proof of the probability of such knowledge. The requirement of notice is ingrained in the concept of due process. While ignorance of the law is generally not an excuse, this ordinance punishes conduct that is wholly passive—a mere failure to register—unlike affirmative acts or failures to act under circumstances that should alert a person to potential legal consequences. The violation is unaccompanied by any activity, with mere presence being the test, and circumstances that might prompt inquiry are lacking. To convict a person who was wholly unaware of any wrongdoing and was not given an opportunity to comply would be a violation of due process.
Dissenting - Justice Frankfurter
No. The ordinance does not violate the Due Process Clause. The law is replete with regulatory and public welfare statutes that impose criminal liability without requiring awareness of wrongdoing, often referred to as strict liability offenses. The majority creates an untenable constitutional distinction between failing to do something (nonfeasance) and doing something (feasance), which is not a valid basis for a constitutional ruling. There is no meaningful difference in fairness between punishing someone who unknowingly commits an affirmative act, like selling misbranded narcotics, and someone who unknowingly fails to act, like failing to register. This decision is an isolated deviation from a strong current of precedent upholding such laws under the state's police power.
Analysis:
This case establishes a significant, though narrow, exception to the traditional legal maxim that 'ignorance of the law is no excuse.' The Court's holding suggests that for crimes of pure omission involving entirely passive conduct, the Due Process Clause may require some level of scienter, specifically actual or probable knowledge of the legal duty. This decision introduces a constitutional minimum for notice in a specific category of strict liability criminal offenses. It forces lower courts to scrutinize statutes that punish passive non-conduct, especially where there are no circumstances to put a reasonable person on notice of their legal obligations.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Lambert v. California (1957)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"