State v. Shack Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1971. Facts: Tejeras and Shack (defendants) entered the private property of Tedesco (plaintiff) for the purpose of giving aid to migrant farm workers that were employed and housed by Tedesco on his property. Part of such aid was supposed to be giving legal advice to one of the migrant farm workers courtesy of a nonprofit corporation funded by the government pursuant to an act of Congress. Although offering to let Tejeras and Shack consult the migrant farm worker, Tedesco refused to allow a private legal consultation and when Tejeras and Shack insisted on privacy, Tedesco filed a written complaint with the police alleging a violation of a New Jersey trespassing statute. Procedural History: The defendants were convicted of trespassing in municipal court and again on appeal in a county court. Further appeal was certified to the supreme court of New Jersey before argument in the appellate division. Issue: Does a property owner’s right to exclude trespassers allow a property owner to refuse entry to those who would provide government services/aid to others who reside on the owner’s land? Holding: No. Defendants, therefore, were not trespassing within the meaning of the statute. Reversed and remanded for entry of judgments of acquittals. Reasoning: Tedesco’s rights in his land did not justify refusing access to Tejeras and Shack when their aim was to provide aid in private to the migrant workers who were housed on the land. Rights in real property are not absolute and are limited by the maintenance of the wellbeing of those people that the owner permits on his land. Tedesco permitted the migrant farm workers to stay on his land, so despite his interests in his property, he is not entitled to refuse access to individuals seeking to aid those workers (government services, recognized charitable services, members of press not refused by workers). The workers’ rights of privacy and the opportunity to receive such public assistance are too fundamental to be denied. Therefore, Tejeras and Shack did not invade any property rights of Tedesco and thus did not violate the trespass statute.