Lambert v. California

Background

A woman who had lived in Los Angeles for more than seven years and had been convicted there of forgery, a felony, did not register under a city ordinance that required "convicted persons" to register. The ordinance made it a crime to be in the city more than five days without registering and imposed continuing daily offenses. After being arrested on another charge she was prosecuted under the registration law, convicted by a jury, fined $250, and placed on three years’ probation. She argued the ordinance denied her due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. Lower courts upheld the conviction and the case reached the Supreme Court.

Reasoning

The Court focused on whether a criminal punishment could be imposed where a person had no actual knowledge of a passive duty to register. The ordinance contained no willfulness or knowledge element and the record showed she offered proof that she did not know of the duty. The Court stressed that due process includes notice and that punishing mere passive failure to act, without proof of actual knowledge or probable notice, is unfair. The Court concluded that actual knowledge or proof that the person probably knew the duty is required before a conviction under this ordinance.

Real world impact

The decision reverses this conviction and limits enforcement of similar local registration laws as applied to residents who lack notice. It protects former felons who can show they did not know of a registration duty from criminal penalties absent proof of knowledge. The ruling leaves other registration schemes that involve active conduct or notice questions to be judged on their facts.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Frankfurter, joined by Justices Harlan and Whittaker, dissented, warning that many state and federal regulatory and registration laws have long been applied without requiring knowledge, and that this decision may unsettle that body of law. Justice Burton also dissented as to this application.