## Facts

- A farmer housed migrant farmworkers in an on-site camp on his property.
- A federally funded legal-services attorney and a federally funded social-services worker entered the property to assist migrant workers living there.
- The farmer told them they could meet workers only in the farmer’s office and only in the farmer’s presence, and he refused private consultations.
- The visitors insisted on meeting the workers privately due to confidentiality needs and the workers’ ability to receive visitors.
- After the visitors refused to accept the conditions or leave, a state trooper was summoned and the visitors were charged under a state criminal trespass statute for remaining after being told to leave.
- The visitors were convicted in municipal court, and the convictions were affirmed after a trial de novo in county court.

## Issues

1. Whether a landowner who houses migrant farmworkers may invoke the criminal trespass statute to exclude government-funded legal and social-service workers seeking private access to those workers.
2. Whether property ownership includes a right to isolate lawful occupants from contact with governmental and charitable assistance.

## Decision

- The New Jersey Supreme Court reversed the convictions and directed entry of judgments of acquittal.
- The court held that the trespass statute did not reach this entry because the visitors sought reasonable access to assist persons lawfully living on the premises.
- The court concluded the landowner could not condition access on supervision that would defeat confidential legal and medical communications.

## Legal Principles

- Property rights are not absolute; the right to exclude is limited when its exercise would deny lawful occupants basic opportunities to live with dignity and to receive customary associations and services.
- Title to land does not confer control over the lives of persons the owner permits to reside on the property; the law prioritizes the well-being of those occupants.
- Migrant workers living in employer-provided housing have a right to receive visitors of their choosing, including legal, medical, and social-service providers, and to meet them privately.
- A landowner may impose reasonable time, place, and manner conditions and may require visitors to identify themselves, but may not use property rights to block essential assistance or confidentiality.
- Criminal trespass statutes should be construed to avoid applications that frustrate policies supporting access to legal and social services for vulnerable residents.

## Conclusion

The court limited the landowner’s right to exclude by recognizing migrant workers’ rights as lawful occupants to receive and privately consult with legal and social-service visitors, and it held the criminal trespass statute could not be used to criminalize reasonable access for that purpose.


State v. Shack, 277 A.2d 369 (N.J. 1971)