State v. Shack

Case brief summary

Facts

Two aid workers went onto a farmer's property to help migrant farmworkers living there. The farmer said they could only meet in his office, and had them arrested for trespassing when they refused.

Procedural history

The men were convicted of trespassing twice, first in municipal court and then in county court. The state's highest court took the case before a lower appeals court could decide it.

Issue

Does a law against trespassing after being told to leave apply to aid workers who enter a farmer's property to help migrant farmworkers living there, when the farmer insists on supervising or blocking the meeting?

Holding

The convictions were reversed and the case was sent back with instructions to find the men not guilty, because their conduct never amounted to trespassing in the first place.

Reasoning

The court said property rights are not absolute and exist to serve people's needs. An owner cannot use his land to block isolated workers from getting health care, legal help, or visits from people they choose.

Opinions

Majority (Weintraub): Property rights do not let a landowner block workers from getting outside help, so the aid workers did not trespass.