## Facts

- Several volunteers conducted a beach clean-up on a coastal beach in the Town of Westerly, Rhode Island.
- A littoral owner, Wilfred Kay, had marked what he believed to be the boundary of his private property at the mean high-water line and told the volunteers not to cross landward of it.
- A Westerly police officer was present when the confrontation occurred.
- The state alleged the volunteers crossed onto land landward of the mean high-water line without permission and charged them with criminal trespass under § 19-17 of the Westerly Town Code.
- The case reached appellate review largely on stipulated boundary facts rather than a developed trial record; the dispositive question was whether the relevant location was within the public shore or private upland.

## Issues

1. What is the landward boundary of the “shore” protected by Article I, section 17 of the Rhode Island Constitution: the mean high-water line or a more landward high-water mark?
2. If the shore ends at the mean high-water line, may presence landward of that line support criminal trespass on a littoral owner’s property?

## Decision

- The Rhode Island Supreme Court sustained the state’s appeal and reversed the Superior Court’s dismissal of the trespass charges.
- The court held the landward boundary of the constitutional “shore” is the mean high-water line.
- Land above the mean high-water line is private property of the littoral owner; entry there without permission can constitute criminal trespass under the municipal ordinance.
- The matter was remanded for entry of judgment consistent with the court’s boundary determination.

## Legal Principles

- Article I, section 17 preserves previously existing “privileges of the shore” as defined by Rhode Island’s charter and historic usages and is construed in line with common-law rules absent legislative modification.
- Under Rhode Island common law, the boundary between public trust tidelands and private littoral ownership is the mean high-water line, not a variable visible high-water mark associated with storms or debris lines.
- Courts will not expand public shore access inland beyond the mean high-water line through constitutional interpretation where doing so would reassign private property interests; any such change is for the legislature to enact clearly.

## Conclusion

The court fixed the public “shore” at and below the mean high-water line for purposes of Article I, section 17, making land above that line private upland and reversing dismissal of criminal trespass charges premised on unauthorized entry landward of the mean high-water boundary.


State v. Ibbison, 448 A.2d 728 (R.I. 1982)