Jennifer Sanoh

Property- Fall 2010

Professor Roisman

Chapter 1: What is property? The Right to Exclude

State v. Shack
S.Ct of New Jersey
277 A.2d 369 (N.J. 1971)

Facts: Defendants (one a field worker, for SCOPE a non profit

corporation offering “health services” for the migrant
worker. The other, a staff attyn, w/CRLS -- a nonprofit
funded by the Office of Economic Opportunity
offering legal advice and representation for these
workers) entered upon private property against the refusal of the
landowner, a farmer, to aid migrant farm workers
employed and housed there.

Differences had occurred btw the farmer and defendants

prior to the trespass charges. Subsequently, when D, a
field worker, wanted to enter the farmer’s land to locate a
migrant worker who needed medical assistance, he
enlisted the help of defendant an attyn.

Defendants entered the farmer’s, property and as they

neared the camp site where the migrant worker was
housed, they were confronted by the farmer
who inquired as to their purpose. After (D) stating
their mission, the farmer offered to find the injured worker.
As to the worker who needed legal advice, the farmer
offered to
locate the man but insisted that the consultation would
have to take place in his office and in his presence.

D declines, stating that they had a right to see the men in

the privacy of their living quarters and w/o his supervision.
Thereupon, the farmer summoned a state trooper who
initially refused to remove the defendants and only
cooperated with the removal upon the famer’s written
complaint.

The farmer then executed the formal complaints charging

violations of the statute.
C/A: Trespass onto property

PH: D. charged with violating N.J.S.A. 2a: 170-31 (pg. 13)

Complaints were prosecuted in Municipal Ct and in the
County Ct by counsel engaged by the complaining
landowner, the farmer. However, the farmer did not
response to the appeal and the county prosecutor, while defending
abstractly the constitutionality of the trespass statute
expressly disclaimed any position as to whether the statute
reached the activity of these defendants.

Issue: Whether the migrant worker should be deemed to be a

tenant and thus entitled to the tenant’s right to receive
visitors or whether his residence on the employer’s
property should be deemed to be merely incidental and in
aid of his employment and hence to involve no possessory
interest in the realty (pg. 17)

Judgment: Ct states [D] here invaded no possessory right of the

farmer— employer. Their conduct was therefore
beyond the reach of the trespass statute. The
judgments are accordingly reversed and the matters
remanded to the County Ct with directions to enter
judgments of the acquittal [pg 17].

R.O.L.:

Reasoning: Ct finds it unthinkable that the farmer employer can assert

a right to isolate the migrant worker in any respect
significant for the workers well being…The ct sees no
legitimate need for a right in the farmer to deny the
worker the opportunity for aid available from federal, State
or local services, or from recognized charitable groups
seeking to assist him (2nd paragraph, pg. 17).

Hence, representatives of these agencies and

organizations may enter upon the premises to
seek out the worker at his living quarters. So too, the
migrant worker must be allowed to receive visitors
there of his own choice, so long as there is no behavior hurtful
to others and members of the press may not be denied
reasonable access to workers who do not object to seeing
them( 2nd paragraph. pg 17).

The employer may reasonably require a visitor to identify

himself and also to state his general purpose if the migrant
worker has not already informed him that the visitor is expected.
But the employer may not deny the worker his privacy
or interfere w. his opportunity to live with dignity and
to enjoy associations customary amongst citizens. These
rights are too fundamental to be denied on the basis of an
interest in real property and to fragile to be left to the unequal
bargaining of strength of the parties (4th
paragraph, pg. 17).

Questions and other considerations?

1. What are the legal standards on which each side relies, and what
are the sources of those standards (federal or state constitution,
statute, regulation, common law)?

Plaintiff: Relies on the constitutionality of the trespass statute (pg.

13), and cases construing the National labor relations act (pg. 14)

Defendants: Rely on the U.S. constitution

2. What standard of review is the court applying? Does everyone

agree about what is the appropriate standard of review? (NEED
TO ANSWER)

3. What are the "human interest" arguments on each side?

Accommodation btw the right of the owner and the interest of
the general public in his use of this property and an
accommodation btw the right of the owner and the right of
individuals who are parties with him in consensual transactions
relating to the use of the property.

4. What are the policy arguments on each side?

5. What are the differences, and the bases (expressed and apparent)
for the differences when judges (on the same or different courts)
disagree about a particular case or issue? N/A

6. Where are the judges finding the rules they are applying? Ct looks
at their state law, under which the ownership pf real property does
not include the right to a bar access to governmental services
avaible to migrant workers and hence there was not trespass within
the meaning of the penal statute (3rd paragraph, pg. 14)