CB Lambert v. Cali - Holding Yes Rule Laws that has a...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Lambert v. California 355 U.S. 225 (1957) Fact: Procedural Facts: Operative Facts: Ms. Lambert was a convicted felon who was found violating the Section 52.39: It shall be unlawful for any convicted person to be or remain in Los Angeles for a period of more than 5 days without registering; it requires any person having a dwelling place outside the city to register if he comes into the city on five occasions or more during a 30 day period. The fine was $250 dollars, and probation for three years. She argued it violated her due process. Issue: Broad Question: Narrow Question: Does the ordinance violate the due process?
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: Holding: Yes Rule: Laws that has a absence of an opportunity to either avoid the consequences of the law or to register and where there was no proof of the probability of such knowledge, he may not be convicted consistently with due process. Rational: It would be just as bad if the law was written in print too fine to read or in a language foreign to the community. Synthesis: Dissent/Concurrences: Frankfurter Dissent: Believes so many laws follow this. Feels confident that the decision made in this one is an isolated deviation from the strong current of precedents....
View Full Document

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Ask a homework question - tutors are online