States, supra, 342 U.S. at 250-57, 72 S.Ct. at 243-246. 7 . The Court has consistently held that the legislature has the power to create strict liability crimes. As Mr. Justice DOUGLAS stated in Lambert: “We do not go with Blackstone in saying that a ‘vicious will’ is necessary to constitute a crime, ... for conduct alone without regard to the intent of the doer is often sufficient. There is wide latitude in lawmakers to declare an offense and exclude elements of knowledge and diligence from its definition.” 355 U.S. at 228, 78 S.Ct. at 242. While wide, however, the legislature’s latitude is not unbounded, and legislation creating a strict liability crime must comport with constitutional guarantees. See Smith v. California, 361 U.S. 147, 150, 80 S.Ct. 215, 217, 4 L.Ed.2d 205 (1959) (<HOLDING>). Lambert v. California, supra (holding
holding unconstitutional under coates v cincinnati that portion of an ordinance making it unlawful for a person to stand on a sidewalk and inter alia annoy passersby holding unconstitutional an ordinance making it a crime to possess an obscene book without regard to defendants knowledge of books contents holding ordinance restricting availability of abortion unconstitutional holding unconstitutional an ordinance prohibiting opprobious language holding that a plaintiff had standing to attack an entire ordinance including portions of the ordinance not applied to the plaintiff