Document: 355 U.S. 225 78 S.Ct. 240 2 L.Ed.2d 228 Virginia LAMBERT, Appellant,v.The PEOPLE OF THE STATE CALIFORNIA. No. 47. Argued Oct. 16, 17, 1957. Decided Dec. Rehearing Denied Jan. 27, 1958. See 937, 410. Mr. Samuel C. McMorris, Los Angeles, Cal., for the appellant. Warren M. Christopher, as amicus curiae. Messrs. Philip E. Grey, and Clarence, A. Linn, San Francisco, appellee. Justice DOUGLAS delivered opinion of Court. 1 Section 52.38(a) Angeles Municipal Code defines 'convicted person' follows: 'Any person who, subsequent to January 1, 1921, has been or hereafter is convicted an offense punishable a felony in State California, who any place other than which offense, if committed would have felony.' 3 52.39 provides that it shall be unlawful 'any remain period more five days without registering; requires having abode outside city register he comes into on occasions during 30-day period; prescribes information furnished Chief Police registering. 4 52.43(b) makes failure continuing each day's constituting separate offense. 5 Appellant, arrested suspicion another was charged with violation this registration law.* The evidence showed she had at time her arrest resident over seven years. Within crime forgery, California punishes felony. Though felony, not registered under Code. At trial, appellant asserted § denies due process law rights Federal Constitution, unnecessary enumerate. trial court denied objection. case tried jury found guilty. fined $250 placed probation three renewing constitutional objection, moved judgment new trial. This motion denied. On appeal constitutionality again challenged. Appellate Department Superior Court affirmed judgment, holding there no merit claim ordinance unconstitutional. here appeal. 28 U.S.C. 1257(2), U.S.C.A. 1257(2). We noted probable jurisdiction, 352 914, 77 218, 121, designated curiae appear support argued reargued, we now hold provisions sought applied violate Due Process requirement Fourteenth Amendment. 6 provision, carrying criminal penalties, applies 'of California' or, State, 'would felony' committee California. No element willfulness by terms included nor read condition necessary conviction. 7 must assume actual knowledge ordinance, offered proof defense refused. question whether act character violates where his duty register, showing made probability such knowledge. 8 do go Blackstone saying 'a vicious will' constitute crime, Bl.Comm. *21, conduct alone regard intent doer often sufficient. There wide latitude lawmakers declare exclude elements diligence from its definition. Chicago, B. & Q.R. Co. v. United States, 220 559, 578, 31 612, 617, 55 L.Ed. 582. But deal wholly passive—mere register. It unlike commission acts, circumstances should alert consequences deed. Cf. Shevlin-Carpenter Minnesota, 218 57, 30 663, 54 930; States Balint, 258 250, 42 301, 66 604; Dotterweich, 320 277, 284, 64 134, 138, 88 48. rule 'ignorance will excuse' (Shevlin-Carpenter supra, page 68, 666) deep our law, principle all powers local government, police power 'one least limitable.' District Columbia Brooke, 214 149, 29 560, 563, 53 941. hand, places some limits exercise. Engrained concept notice. Notice sometimes essential so citizen chance defend charges. required before property interests are disturbed, assessments made, penalties assessed. myriad situations penalty forfeiture might suffered mere act. Recent cases ullustrating point Mullane Central Hanover Bank Trust Co., 339 306, 70 652, 94 865; Covey Town Somers, 351 141, 76 724, 100 1021; Walker City Hutchinson, 112, 200, 178. These involved only civil litigation. equally appropriate person, passive unaware wrongdoing, brought bar justice condemnation case. 9 Registration laws common their range wide. People New York ex rel. Bryant Zimmerman, 278 63, 49 61, 73 184; Harriss, 347 74 808, 98 989; Kahriger, 345 22, 510, 97 754. Many akin licensing statutes they pertain regulation business activities. present entirely different. Violation unaccompanied activity whatever, presence being test. Moreover, move one inquire necessity completely lacking. most but enforcement technique designed convenience agencies through list names addresses felons then residing given community compiled. disclosure merely compilation former convictions already publicly recorded jurisdiction obtained. Nevertheless, first becoming aware opportunity comply avoid penalty, even though default innocent. She could suffer namely, conviction imposition heavy thereunder. believe can stand. As Holmes wrote Common Law, 'A punished blameworthy average member too severe bear.' Id., 50. Its severity lies absence either prosecution it. Where did know knowledge, may consistently process. Were otherwise, evil great when written print fine language foreign community. 10 Reversed. 11 BURTON, dissents because believes that, appellant, does rights. 12 FRANKFURTER, whom HARLAN WHITTAKER join, dissenting. 13 forty-eight thick command things done others done, although persons awareness what wrongdoing. body decisions sustaining legislation, including innumerable laws, almost voluminous legislation itself. matter summarized 252, 302, 604: 'Many instances regulatory measures exercise called emphasis statute evidently upon achievement social betterment rather punishment crimes mala se.' 14 Surely hardly difference fairness, hardship, justice, invoke it, between innocent sense remotely conscious violating imprisoned years relating narcotics, pay $250, failure, resident, passed State's 'police power.'* Considerations hardship lead courts, naturally enough, attribute certain mental consciousness wrongdoing law's command—as statutory construction. Then, too, cruelly disproportionate relation sanction disobedience Eighth Amendment cruel unusual punishment, and, respect offend Clause 15 draw line doing doing. What return Year Book distinctions feasance nonfeasance—a distinction significance evolution common-law notions liability, inadmissible unconstitutionality. One confident last line. about 'blameworthiness' worth quoting context: 16 'It intended deny well civil, founded blameworthiness. Such denial shock moral civilized community; put way, (This passage setting broader discussion part. Holmes, 50.) 17 If generalization underlies, justify, decision were relevant scope, whole volume Reports document detail country fall impaired. I abstain entering consideration adjudications feel turn out isolated deviation strong current precedents—a derelict waters law. Accordingly, content myself * For recent comprehensive reviw these see Note, 103 U. Pa.L.Rev. 60 (1954). involve decide Appellant forgery Furthermore, itself, resided leading proceedings.

Category: 3