In People v. Fogelson (1978) 21 Cal.3d 158, appellant, who belonged to the Hare Krishna faith, was convicted of soliciting contributions on public property (Los Angeles International Airport) without a permit. The city attorney contended appellant did not have standing to challenge the constitutionality of the ordinance because he had not applied for a permit as the ordinance required. The Supreme Court found no merit in the city's argument: "'It is . . . settled that petitioners have standing to attack the constitutional validity of an ordinance which they are charged with having violated even though they have failed to allege that they attempted to comply with its permit requirement. ( Dillon v. Municipal Court, supra, 4 Cal.3d 860, 866 fn. 6, and cases collected therein; see also Burton v. Municipal Court, supra, 68 Cal.2d 684, 687-688.) "Standing is recognized in such a situation because of the dangers inherent in tolerating, in the realm of the First Amendment, the existence of a penal statute susceptible of sweeping and improper application. " . . .'" (Id. at pp. 162-163, fn. 3.)