Case Law Summaries

State v. Cavallo

• Opinion Date: May 11, 2001
• Real Property Law
• E-Mail

TRESPASS; LICENSES—A person that enters another’s land under a license agreement can be guilty of criminal trespass if the license was for a limited purpose and the entry was for a different purpose.

A property owner filed a citizen complaint in a municipal court alleging that an individual had committed the petty disorderly persons offense of criminal trespass. The complaint was dismissed because of the absence of probable cause and the dismissal was upheld by the Law Division. The affidavit submitted to the municipal court by the complainant on the issue of probable cause stated that he was the owner of real property and that the trespasser had improperly deposited solid waste materials on his property. He stated that he had given permission to the trespasser to use the property to “DUMP CLEAN FILL.” He claimed to have prohibited any entrance upon his property except for dumping clean fill. He also claimed that he received notice from the county health department that prohibited solid waste had been dumped on his property. The petty disorderly person’s offense of trespass requires entry of a person knowing he is not licensed or privileged to do so, and entering or remaining where the alleged trespasser has received notice by actual communication, by posting in a manner prescribed by law, or by fencing or other enclosure manifestly designed to exclude intruders. The lower court reasoned that probable cause did not exist because the complainant admitted that he had given the trespasser permission to enter his land, thereby licensing the trespasser to be on the property. The Appellate Division found that the lower court erred by disregarding the limited nature of the license. Prior law would have been governed by a provision that provided as follows: “Any person, firm or corporation that throws, drops, ... without first obtaining the permission of the owner ..., any ... garbage, refuse or debris of any nature is a disorderly person.” When the penal code was revised, it was observed that “The Code’s policy is to consolidate these into a comprehensive statutory enactment.” The complainant alleged that he actually communicated to the trespasser that he could enter his property for the purpose of dumping clean fill and for no other purpose. He further alleged that “in defiance of the limited license, [the trespasser] knowingly entered and dumped solid waste.” As such, although the precise issue did not appear to have previously arisen in New Jersey, the Court perceived “nothing in this code which denied the property owner the right to issue a limited licence with respect to the use of his land or which permits a licensee to disregard the restrictions placed on the license.” Further, the Court noted that if the complainant succeeded in proving his case and the loss suffered, if any, he might also be entitled to restitution under N.J.S. 2C:43-3. “There is no just basis as suggested by the courts below, for limiting him to pursuit of a civil action in order to vindicate his rights under the law.”

Copyright ©2003. Meislik & Meislik. All rights reserved.