State v. Shack

Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1971 · Property

277 A.2d 369 (1971)

Updated July 23, 2026

PropertyTrespassRight to excludeMigrant farmworkersmigrant workersaccess to servicesproperty rightshuman values

Facts

Tedesco, a farmer, employed migrant workers and housed them on his property as part of their compensation. Tejeras, a SCOPE field worker, entered the property to find a worker needing medical aid, and Shack, a legal services attorney, entered to speak with another worker about a legal problem. Tedesco offered to locate the workers but insisted the legal consultation occur in his office and in his presence rather than privately in the workers' living quarters. When defendants refused to leave, Tedesco signed trespass complaints under N.J.S.A. 2A:170-31.

Issue

Whether defendants committed criminal trespass by remaining on a farmer-employer's property to provide medical and legal assistance to migrant workers housed there after the owner demanded that they leave. More specifically, the question was whether the owner's property rights included the right to exclude such aid workers from access to the migrant workers' living quarters.

Rule

Title to real property does not include dominion over the destiny of persons the owner permits to come upon the premises. A farmer-employer may not use property rights to isolate migrant workers from governmental services, recognized charitable assistance, visitors of their own choice, or reasonable press access when the workers do not object; the owner may protect farming operations and security through reasonable identification requirements, but may not deny privacy, dignity, and needed associations.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Lena Ortiz owns a berry farm outside Vineland, New Jersey, where seasonal pickers live in cabins on the property as part of their pay. A county health nurse arrives to check on a worker who reported an infected hand, but Lena says the nurse may speak to the worker only on the porch of Lena’s house while Lena listens.

If the nurse remains on the property to meet privately with the worker in the worker’s cabin after Lena orders her to leave, is the nurse most likely guilty of trespass?

Explanation. The majority held that ownership does not include dominion over the destiny of persons permitted to live on the land. An owner may not isolate migrant workers from governmental services significant to their well-being, and may not insist on supervision that strips privacy and dignity. The owner may protect security by reasonable identification requirements, but not by denying access altogether.