I’m sure most of us are familiar with the notion that ignorance of the law is no excuse for violating it. But could you get in trouble when you are aware of the law and genuinely believe that you are following it?
Yesterday in our Environmental Legal Research and Writing class (did I get that name right?) we discussed such things as ambiguity and legislative intent. A court may consider the legislature’s purpose in deciding how to interpret a statute, and this interpretation may not be perfectly clear in the wording of the law. For example: the legislature passes a statute prohibiting doing X or Y while driving. Their purpose has to do with preventing impairment of one’s driving ability which occurs when one does X or Y, but which can also occur in a similar fashion when one does Z, which is somewhat akin to X and Y but is not expressly forbidden in the statute.
Let’s say the average Joe Schmoe, who is not a lawyer, knows that he may not do X or Y while driving. But he does Z, which, as far as he knows, is perfectly acceptable. Is he in violation of the law? Apparently a court can convict him under the no-doing-X-or-Y statute because the purpose of the law would also rule out Z, which he is guilty of.
Poor guy. How was he to know that? He had knowledge of the law, but that wasn’t good enough. He also had to read the legislators’ minds! (Of course, the court may also interpret the statute more literally and recognize that the legislature should have done a better job of expressing its wishes if it didn’t want people doing Z.)
And since I brought up the issue of ignorance of the law, here’s one to be aware of next time you travel through Lexington, Tennessee:
It is illegal to transport an ice cream cone in your pocket.
( http://www.dumblaws.com/laws/united-states/tennessee/?page=20 )
So don’t you do that! Or at least, don’t get caught!
(Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in this blog entry are entirely my own and do not necessarily represent those of Vermont Law School or anyone else, blah blah blah.)

