Reach of trespassing

State v. Shack

A. Who sued whom, when, why, and for what?

Tedesco sued Shack and others for trespassing, while Shack and others was trying to
provide aids to migrant farmers on Tedesco’s land.

B. What happened in the lower courts? How did the Lower court reason?
The lower court convicted Shacks. As they went on T’s property unauthorized.

C. Where are we now procedurally?

In Supreme Court before argument in Appellate Division.

D. What question is before the court? What is the court’s answer to the question?
Whether Shacks’ conduct falls with in the reach of trespassing.

F. What rule does the court apply in answering that question?

-Under State law the ownership of real property does not include the right to bar
access to governmental services available to migrant workers and hence there was no
trespass within the meaning of the penal statute.
-Policy: Title III-B of the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 for "assistance for
migrant and other seasonally employed farmworkers and their families. Section
2862(b)(1) provides for funding of programs "to meet the immediate needs of migrant
and seasonal farmworkers and their families, such as day care for children, education,
health services, improved housing and sanitation (including the provision and
maintenance of emergency and temporary housing and sanitation facilities), legal
advice and representation, and consumer training and counseling."

G. How does the court reason its way to its conclusion?

1. exploring constitutional claims is unnecessary due to state law.
2. property serves human value.
3. policy reasons: protecting the weak.
4. coordinate individual and social interests.
5. employer and employee’s rights.
H. What does the court do and/or direct the lower court to do?
Their conduct was therefore beyond the reach of the trespass statute. The judgments
are accordingly reversed and the matters remanded to the County Court with
directions to enter judgments of acquittal.

I. Who wins?
Shack.