State v. Shack
Citation
58 N.J. 297 (N.J. 1971). Supreme Court of New Jersey.
Facts
Peter Tedesco owned a farm in New Jersey and employed migrant farm workers who lived on his property. Godfried Shack, a legal services attorney, and Bernard Tejeras, a federal government field worker for a poverty program, entered Tedesco’s property to meet with migrant workers — one of whom needed medical attention and another who needed legal assistance. Tedesco refused to allow private meetings and the workers were ordered to leave. Shack and Tejeras were charged with criminal trespass.
Issue
Does a landowner’s right to exclude trespassers extend to preventing government workers and legal aid attorneys from accessing migrant farm workers living on the property?
Holding
The court reversed the trespass convictions, holding that Tedesco’s property rights did not include the right to bar access to government services and legal assistance for workers lawfully residing on the land.
Rule / Doctrine
Property rights are not absolute. The right to exclude must yield when its assertion would deprive persons lawfully on the property of fundamental human rights — including access to government services and legal counsel. Workers living on a farm have a right to receive essential medical, legal, and social services regardless of the landowner’s preference. As the court stated: “Title to real property cannot include dominion over the destiny of persons the owner permits to come upon the premises.”
Significance
State v. Shack is a landmark case establishing that the right to exclude has limits rooted in human dignity. It is regularly paired with Jacques v. Steenberg Homes (strong right to exclude from strangers) to illustrate the scope and limits of exclusion rights in property law.