Lambert v. California

Supreme Court of the United States · 1958 · Criminal Law

355 U.S. 225 (1958)

Updated August 1, 2026

Criminal Lawnoticeomissiondue processfailure to registerpassive conductactual knowledgeprobability of knowledge

Facts

Los Angeles required any person convicted of an offense punishable as a felony in California to register if he or she remained in the city for more than five days, and made each day of nonregistration a separate offense. Appellant had lived in Los Angeles for over seven years and had previously been convicted there of forgery, a California felony, but had never registered under the ordinance. The ordinance contained no willfulness element, and the California court had not interpreted it to require one. The Court assumed appellant had no actual knowledge of the registration requirement because she offered proof of that defense and the trial court refused it.

Issue

Does the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment permit conviction under a felon-registration ordinance when the defendant had no actual knowledge of the duty to register and there was no showing of the probability of such knowledge? More specifically, may a city impose criminal penalties for a wholly passive failure to register based solely on presence in the city under those circumstances?

Rule

Although legislatures often may create criminal offenses without requiring intent, due process limits that power when the offense consists of wholly passive conduct such as mere failure to register. A conviction for such an omission cannot stand where the defendant had no actual knowledge of the duty to register and there is no proof of the probability of such knowledge.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Seattle adopts an ordinance requiring any person previously convicted of an in-state felony to register with the city police within seven days of moving into the city. Nina Torres, who moved to Seattle three years ago, never registered, credibly testifies she did not know of the ordinance, and the prosecution offers no evidence that she probably knew of it.

If Nina is convicted solely for failing to register, what is the strongest constitutional argument against the conviction?

Explanation. The majority held that, although legislatures often may impose criminal liability without intent, due process limits that power when the offense is wholly passive, such as mere failure to register. Where the defendant lacked actual knowledge of the duty and the prosecution failed to show the probability of such knowledge, conviction cannot stand.