Loftus v. District of Columbia
51 A.3d 1285
D.C.2012Background
- Loftus convicted of operating a motor vehicle while her DC license was suspended (OAS).
- Loftus argued the trial court failed to require proof of mens rea (knowledge or reason to know of suspension).
- DC argued OAS is a strict liability offense not requiring scienter; Santos control binds the outcome.
- Evidence showed license suspended on August 31, 2009; DMV notice to Loftus about suspension not proven.
- Jury instruction did not include a mens rea requirement; Santos and subsequent analysis guide disposition.
- Court remands to vacate one DUI/OWL conviction consistent with Santos while affirming the OAS conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether OAS requires mens rea. | Loftus: government must prove knowledge of suspension. | District: OAS is strict liability; no mens rea required. | OAS is strict liability; Santos binding; mens rea not required for OAS. |
Key Cases Cited
- Santos v. District of Columbia, 940 A.2d 113 (D.C.2007) (holds OWP is strict liability; no knowledge of suspension needed for conviction)
- McNeely v. United States, 874 A.2d 371 (D.C.2005) (four McNeely factors to infer intent in silent statutes)
- Staples v. United States, 511 U.S. 600 (U.S. 1994) (discusses strict liability vs. mens rea in regulatory offenses)
- Foster v. District of Columbia, 497 A.2d 100 (D.C.1985) (court noted notice may not be necessary, but did not decide)
- Bell v. Burson, 402 U.S. 535 (U.S.1971) (due process; notice and hearing related to licensing)