Can a state trespass statute be constitutionally applied to individuals who enter private property for the purpose of assisting migrant farmworkers?

Peter K. Shack, a staff attorney with Camden Regional Legal Services, and Frank Tejeras, a field worker for the Southwest Citizens Organization for Poverty Elimination, entered the private property of farmer Tedesco. Both organizations receive funding from the Office of Economic Opportunity to assist migrant farmworkers. Shack intended to discuss a legal matter with a migrant worker, while Tejeras needed to provide medical care to remove sutures from another worker.

Upon encountering Tedesco, Shack and Tejeras refused to leave the property or conduct their business under Tedesco's supervision, asserting their right to meet with the workers privately. In response, Tedesco filed trespass complaints against both individuals under N.J.S.A. 2A:170-31. The situation highlights the conflict between property rights and the rights of migrant workers to receive assistance from social service organizations.

Defendants were initially found guilty in the Municipal Court of Deerfield Township. They subsequently appealed this decision to the County Court of Cumberland County. In the County Court, a new trial (trial de novo) was conducted, resulting again in the defendants' conviction. Following this second conviction, the case bypassed the Appellate Division and was directly taken up by the Supreme Court of New Jersey through a process called certification.

(Weintraub, C.J.)

No. A state trespass statute cannot be constitutionally applied to individuals entering private property to assist migrant farmworkers. Property ownership does not confer an absolute right to exclude others, particularly when such exclusion conflicts with fundamental human values and societal needs. The right of access to governmental services and information for migrant workers, a vulnerable and disadvantaged group, takes precedence over strict property rights. This balancing of interests recognizes that property rights are not unlimited but are circumscribed by broader social considerations and human dignity. The constitutional protection of property must be understood in the context of its service to human values and societal welfare. In modern society, the traditional concept of absolute dominion over land must yield to the overriding public policy of ensuring the well-being of all members of society, especially those who are marginalized or disadvantaged. The right to access essential services and information is fundamental to the dignity and welfare of migrant workers, and this right cannot be arbitrarily restricted by private property owners. This principle aligns with the evolving understanding of property rights as being subject to social obligations and the public interest. The decision reflects a progressive interpretation of constitutional protections, recognizing that the law must adapt to changing social realities and prioritize human needs over rigid property doctrines.