Lambert v. California facts for kids
Quick facts for kids Lambert v. California |
|
|---|---|
|
|
| Argued April 3, 1957 Reargued October 16–17, 1957 Decided December 16, 1957 |
|
| Full case name | Lambert v. California |
| Citations | 355 U.S. 225 (more)
78 S. Ct. 240, 2 L. Ed. 2d 228, 1957 U.S. LEXIS 3
|
| Argument | Oral argument |
| Holding | |
| When applied to a person who has no actual knowledge of his duty to register, and where no showing is made of the probability of such knowledge, this ordinance violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. | |
| Court membership | |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Douglas, joined by Warren, Black, Clark, Brennan |
| Dissent | Burton |
| Dissent | Frankfurter, joined by Harlan, Whittaker |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. Amend. XIV | |
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. The court held that, when one is required to register one's presence, failure to register may only be punished when there is a probability that the accused party had knowledge of the law before committing the crime of failing to register.
Circumstances
Lambert 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 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.
Significance
This case is an exception to the legal principle ignorantia legis non excusat— that the ignorance of the law is not a suitable excuse for breaking it. Because it deals with the motives (or lack thereof) for committing a crime, it addresses mens rea, the degree of legal culpability that arises from the motivation of a criminal.
