Oklahoma v. Wolf

(1) Whether the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals erred when it created a split of authority amongst the lower courts by rejecting the universally-recognized limitations on the scope of this Court"s decision in Lamber v. California, which held that a defendant"s knowledge of an ordinance is constitutionally irrelevant except in a narrow class of convictions where the ordinance involves conduct that is "wholly passive" and conditions do not lead one to inquire about the existence of a regulation; and (2) whether the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals" decision holding that due process requires a statute to provide a means of individual notice conflicts with this Court"s holding in Texaco v. Short, which held in pertinent part that the notice requirement of due process only requires the legislature to enact the law, publish the law, and provide a period of time for people to become familiar with the law.