A New Jersey court has upheld the convictions of two protesters, Sylvia Diane Wilson and Camryn Edwards, for defiant trespass during a demonstration against Formosa Plastics on December 5, 2024. The court's decision, issued on October 20, 2026, confirmed that the defendants knowingly crossed a police-enforced boundary despite warnings, impacting their rights to protest and the legal interpretation of trespass laws.
The case, State of New Jersey v. Sylvia Diane Wilson, was filed under docket number A-3917-24. The ruling is significant as it clarifies the balance between the right to protest and property rights, particularly regarding how notice of trespass can be communicated.
Background
The defendants, Wilson and Edwards, participated in a protest at the headquarters of Formosa Plastics in Livingston, New Jersey. The protest was anticipated by Formosa, which requested police assistance to maintain order and protect its property. On the day of the protest, police established a cone line to designate the area where protesters were prohibited from entering.
According to police testimony and body camera footage, officers repeatedly warned the protesters, including Wilson and Edwards, that crossing the cone line would result in arrest for trespassing. Despite these warnings, both defendants crossed the line and were subsequently arrested.
Following their arrest, the defendants were found guilty of defiant trespass in municipal court. They appealed the decision to the Law Division, which conducted a de novo review of the case and upheld the convictions, concluding that the police were authorized to communicate Formosa's request to keep protesters off the property.
The Ruling
The New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division, in a ruling delivered by Judges Vanek and Bergman, affirmed the lower court's decision. The court stated, "The police were permitted and authorized to provide the actual notice to defendants required by the trespass statute, and the record contains ample evidence supporting the trial court's finding that defendants were guilty of defiant trespass under N.J.S.A. 2C:18-3(b)."
The court addressed the defendants' argument that they did not receive actual notice of the trespass prohibition, emphasizing that the law does not specify that only the property owner can provide such notice. The court referenced a previous case, State v. Hamilton, which supported the notion that police can communicate trespass warnings on behalf of property owners.
Additionally, the court found that the defendants knowingly crossed the boundary despite being warned multiple times. The judges concluded, "Defendants' belief they were permitted to enter the property based on prior events...lack any logical or reasonable basis." This assertion reinforced the court's stance that the defendants were aware they had no right to enter Formosa's property.
Impact
This ruling has important implications for future protests and the rights of individuals to express their views on private property. It clarifies that property owners can establish reasonable restrictions on access during protests and that police can enforce these restrictions. The court's decision also emphasizes that the right to free speech does not grant individuals unlimited access to private property.
The court acknowledged the defendants' claims regarding their First Amendment rights but concluded that Formosa's actions to restrict access were reasonable and did not constitute a violation of free speech. This sets a precedent that property rights can coexist with the right to protest, as long as reasonable measures are taken to ensure public safety and order.
What's Next
While the defendants have lost their appeal, it is unclear if they will seek further legal recourse. The court's ruling can potentially be appealed to the New Jersey Supreme Court, but details were not available in the court filing regarding any pending appeals or related cases.