It`s never too early to know your legal rights and obligations. There is an important legal principle that says, « Ignorance of the law is no excuse. » That`s right: you can`t defend your actions by arguing you didn`t know they were illegal, even if you honestly didn`t know you were breaking the law. The doctrine assumes that the law in question has been properly promulgated – published and distributed, for example, by printing it in an official gazette, making it available on the Internet, or printing in volumes available for sale to the public at affordable prices. In Gratian`s old adage, Leges instituuntur promulgantur (« laws are introduced when they are promulgated »). [3] For a law to have the binding force inherent in a law, it must apply to the persons who must be governed by it. This request shall be made by publication by promulgation. A law can only be binding if it is reasonably possible for those to whom it applies to become aware of it in order to comply with it, even if there is no actual knowledge of the law for a particular person. A secret law is not a law at all. It is important to note that ignorance of the law only works as a defence in certain circumstances. In most cases, this will not be an enforceable defense, as most crimes do not require an accused to know that their conduct is against the law. However, in circumstances where a crime requires a deliberate violation, the defence may be available. If you have been charged with a felony and think ignorance of the law could be a defense, contact Olson Defense`s attorneys at 952-835-1088 for a free consultation.

But even when people have good intentions, they sometimes break the law because they don`t realize they`re doing something illegal. This can happen because our legal system is complicated. When people have good intentions, judges can sometimes be understanding. Judges are less understanding when actions involve certain types of crimes. It would be too easy for people to break a contract, ignore a neighbour`s right to privacy, or sell drugs if they could get away with arguing that they did not know it was breaking the law. The subject was raised during the Enlightenment and in the 18th century. Given the high proportion of illiterates in European countries (who would have some difficulty in knowing all the laws of a country), it is widely debated, including for political reasons. It was then argued that both presumed knowledge and the growing body of national legislation worked in favour of lawyers rather than citizens.

In general, it is not necessary for someone to know that what they are doing is illegal to be convicted of a crime. For example, a driver does not need to know that their blood alcohol level was above 0.08 while driving to be convicted of impaired driving. However, some criminal laws prohibit knowingly breaking the law. This means that in some cases, a person must be doing something illegal and must have known that it was illegal. Mikulak was charged with knowingly violating part of the theft law. To be convicted, Mikulak had to know that he had to register within 24 hours of moving to a new district and did not. Mikulak made statements to the court that made it clear that he believed he should register within a week, not within 24 hours. Therefore, he could not knowingly contravene the requirement because he did not know it was a requirement. As a result, the Minnesota Supreme Court overturned the appeals court`s decision and sent the case back to the district court for a new hearing. This concept was recently highlighted in a recent Minnesota Supreme Court decision in State of Minnesota v. Mikulak.

The defendant in this case was charged and pleaded guilty to knowingly violating part of the Flight Registration Act. During his plea hearing, however, it turned out that the defendant did not know that his non-registration was illegal. He appealed his conviction, arguing that because he did not know he had to register within 24 hours, he could not knowingly register within 24 hours. The Minnesota Court of Appeals upheld the defendant`s conviction on the grounds that « ignorance of the law is no excuse. » The Minnesota Supreme Court overturned the defendant`s conviction because ignorance of the law is a defense when the crime requires a deliberate violation. The issue before the U.S. Supreme Court was whether an error of law by a collector was a bona fide defence of error. The court ruled that this was not the case and that such an error can never be « unintentional ». Justice Sonia Sotomayor used the same language — « ignorance of the law will excuse no one, civil or criminal » as in the Barlow case. Miller was convicted of the relatively recent crime of possession of a pseudoephedrine product after being convicted of a methamphetamine-related offence. The offence is found in G.S. 90-95(d1)(1)(c), which is part of a subsection prohibiting the possession of precursor chemicals, and is a Class H felony. This prohibition entered into force on 1 December 2013 and applies to offences committed on or after that date.

In fact, it prohibits anyone with a belief related to methamphetamine from possessing pseudoephedrine, a common decongestant drug (and ingredient in methamphetamine). About five weeks after the effective date, Miller was charged with violating the law after purchasing allergy medication containing the substance. Defence counsel filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that the law was unconstitutional when applied to Miller. The trial court rejected the claim and Miller was convicted by the court. The rationale for the doctrine is that if ignorance were an excuse, a person charged with crimes or facing a civil suit would simply claim that one does not know the law in question in order to avoid liability, even if that person really knows what the law is. Thus, the law attributes knowledge of all laws to all persons under jurisdiction, no matter how fleeting. While it would be impossible, even for someone with extensive legal training, to know all the laws in force in all aspects of a State`s activities, this is the price to pay to ensure that willful blindness cannot become the basis of exculpation. It is therefore common ground that persons holding shares in undertakings which are not part of the normal undertaking of a normal person will become familiar with the laws necessary for the operation of that undertaking. If they don`t, they can`t complain if they`re held accountable. The court`s reasoning, in part, was that further regulations regarding pseudoephedrine must be published when the substance is sold and informed of what is required for legal sale of the drug. G.S.

90-113.54 (2012). For example, pseudoephedrine is subject to volume purchase limits, and purchases are recorded in a national database (among other requirements). Given that these related pseudoephedrine regulations were published in a manner that provided reasonable notice and that Miller followed these procedures for its purchase, it could not be assumed that Miller was aware of the change in the law or even had reason to inquire about the changes in the law. Although Miller was not specifically mentioned in the decision, he was on probation at the time, and the probation officer was not aware of this change in the law and did not inform Miller. Respondent-appellant`s factum concerning 5, State v. Miller, 783 p.E.2d 512 (2016). In addition, the pharmacist who had sold the substance to Miller also considered the transaction to be eligible. Slip op. at 20. Since it was a no-fault liability offence that applied only to a certain class of offenders for otherwise (and past) lawful conduct, a fair warning was required; Without them, the law violates due process. Slip op.

at 27. In the Court of Appeal`s view, ignorance was a defence for Miller in these particular circumstances. « Is it reasonable to expect people to know all the laws in place? No.