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 was an important case heard by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1957. This case looked at whether someone can be punished for breaking a law they didn't know existed. It specifically focused on situations where there was no clear way for the person to know about the law.
The Supreme Court decided that if a law requires someone to register their presence, they can only be punished for not registering if there's a good chance they knew about the law beforehand. This means people should have a fair warning about rules they need to follow.
Contents
Understanding the Case: What Happened?
This case involved a woman named Ms. Lambert. She had been found guilty of forgery in the past. Forgery is a serious crime where someone illegally copies or creates something, like a signature or document.
A Los Angeles Rule About Registration
In Los Angeles, California, there was a special rule, called a city ordinance. This rule said that anyone who had been convicted of a serious crime, like forgery, had to register with the city. They needed to do this if they stayed in Los Angeles for more than five days.
Ms. Lambert did not know about this rule. The ordinance stated that if a person didn't register, they could face a fine of $500. They could also be sent to jail for up to six months for each day they stayed in the city after the five-day limit.
Arrest and Appeal
Later, Ms. Lambert was arrested for something else. During this time, it was discovered she had not registered as required by the city rule. Because she hadn't registered, she was found guilty of breaking this ordinance.
She was fined $250 and given three years of probation. Probation means she had to follow certain rules instead of going to jail. Ms. Lambert argued that she didn't know about the registration rule. She felt that punishing her for a law she didn't know about was unfair. She believed it went against her right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Why This Case Matters
The Lambert v. California case is special because it's an exception to a common legal idea. This idea is often stated in Latin: ignorantia legis non excusat. This means "ignorance of the law does not excuse." Usually, if you break a law, you can't just say, "I didn't know it was a law!" and get out of trouble.
Fairness and Knowing the Rules
However, the Lambert case showed that sometimes, this rule needs to be flexible. Especially when a law requires someone to do something (like register) and there's no easy way for them to know about it. The court looked at whether Ms. Lambert had any way of knowing about her duty to register.
This case also touches on mens rea, which is a legal term. It refers to the "guilty mind" or the intention behind a crime. In many crimes, the person must have intended to do something wrong. In Ms. Lambert's case, she didn't intend to break the law because she didn't even know it existed. The Supreme Court's decision helped clarify when a person's lack of knowledge can be a valid defense.
