Legal Battle Over Lake Michigan Beach Access Heads to Appeal
A longstanding debate over public and private beach access along Lake Michigan is set to escalate as a Shorewood resident, Paul Florsheim, plans to contest a court ruling that found him guilty of trespassing. His case could potentially reach the Wisconsin Supreme Court, a move that could redefine beach access rights in the state.
Florsheim, a University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee professor, has strolled along the Lake Michigan shoreline near Atwater Beach for many years. Last summer, his usual walk was interrupted by a homeowner who questioned his presence on the beach, referencing a no-trespassing sign. Florsheim acknowledged the sign but chose to disregard it, believing the beach area he traversed was public.
“I was quite sure that that beach — the part along the water — was not his, and that anybody could walk there,” Florsheim remarked.
The Shorewood Police Department subsequently issued Florsheim a $313 citation for trespassing. Opting to challenge the ticket, he represented himself at a municipal court hearing in December, arguing that the beach section he walked on constituted public land under the public trust doctrine, which safeguards public rights on Wisconsin’s navigable waterways.
Florsheim asserted his right to walk along the shoreline up to the ordinary high-water mark, defined by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources as the area where water leaves distinct markings like erosion or vegetation changes.
However, Judge Margo Kirchner ruled against Florsheim, referencing a 1923 Wisconsin Supreme Court precedent, Doemel v. Jantz, which grants private property owners exclusive rights to the beach area between the high-water mark and the water’s edge. “Under Doemel, regardless of what Florsheim could do in the water, he could not walk on the beach without trespassing,” Kirchner noted, dismissing Florsheim’s defense under the public trust doctrine.
Undeterred, Florsheim plans to appeal, hoping to bring the matter to the Wisconsin Supreme Court. “It’s not just my issue,” he emphasized. “Other people want to walk, and other people feel quite adamantly that everyone should have the right to walk on the beach.”
David Strifling, director of Marquette Law School’s Water Law and Policy Initiative, highlighted the case’s relevance, noting the common confusion over public access rights when private homes line the lakeshore. Rob Lee of Midwest Environmental Advocates expressed hope that the state supreme court will clarify distinctions between riparian rights and public trust rights.
The 1923 decision stemmed from a Lake Winnebago dispute, and according to Melissa Scanlan of the Center for Water Policy at UW-Milwaukee, the Wisconsin Supreme Court has yet to address public walking rights along Great Lakes shores. She expressed optimism that Florsheim’s case might prompt a definitive ruling.
Similar beach access issues have been resolved in neighboring Indiana and Michigan, where public walking rights below the high-water mark are recognized. Judge Kirchner acknowledged the binding nature of the Doemel decision in Wisconsin, though she hinted it might be time for reconsideration, stating, “Perhaps Doemel should be overruled.”
Shorewood village attorney Nathan Bayer mentioned efforts to resolve the citation before the court hearing, respecting Florsheim’s desire to challenge the law. “I don’t begrudge anybody taking the opportunity to challenge that established law,” Bayer stated, while also noting the village’s obligation to enforce local ordinances based on property owner complaints.
Florsheim’s appeal will proceed to the Milwaukee County Circuit Court, where he might seek legal representation, unlike his self-representation in the initial hearing.
