View this case and other resources at:
Citation. 22 Ill.58 N.J. 297, 277 A.2d 369, 77 LRRM 2408 (1971)
Brief Fact Summary. Defendants entered upon private property in order to aid migrant workers housed thereupon, and, after being ordered to leave by the owner, refused and were convicted of trespassing.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. Under New Jersey state property law there is no right to bar access to government services available to migrant workers; therefore, no trespass occurred. Facts.
Tedesco (property owner), a farmer, housed migrant workers on his property. Co-Defendant Shack (Shack) was employed by a legal aid organization funded pursuant to an act of Congress which was designed to aid migrant farm workers. Co-Defendant Tejeras (Tejeras)contacted Co-Defendant Shack after having a dispute with property owner over access to a migrant worker who needed medical attention. Shack wanted to speak with another migrant housed at the farm regarding a legal matter. Both Shack and Tejeras then entered upon the property to see the migrants. Property owner Tedesco then stopped both Defendants and, after hearing of their intentions, offered to go and get both of the migrants. Property owner also stated that he would have to be present when Co-Defendant Shack met with the migrant regarding the legal matter. Co-Defendants declined such an arrangement stating that they would go to the living quarters of the men they sought and speak privately. Property owner summoned a st
ate trooper and then executed a written complaint of trespass. Co-Defendants were prosecuted in Municipal and County Court by counsel for property owner and were convicted in Municipal Court and again in County Court by trial de novo. Thereafter, appeal was taken to the Appellate Division, but, prior to argument, the Supreme Court of New Jersey certified the appeal. Issue.
Should the property owner be allowed to refuse access to migrant workers housed upon his property and to prosecute aid workers for trespass?