When does a warning become a threat? The other day while on a vacation I drove past a property and saw a sign that read Trespassers Will Be Shot On Sight I've never seen a sign such as that, I was a little taken back. After some research, it turns out that this type of warning sign is total legal (the best answer I found on this. Also, onsite answer). This got me thinking when does a warning become a threat and what consideration is used to determine one from the other?
A warning is arguably often a form of threat (and vice versa). The words are close synonyms. A threat, however, is usually used only in connection with an action that has some sort of human (or at least, AI) agency, while a warning often made to alert someone to a mere natural consequence of an action with no human agency (e.g. a warning that an object is hot and could burn you if you touch it). But, the term &quot;warning&quot;, when used in connection with an action that involves human agency, is usually used when the action threatened would be lawful when taken (and often refers to a threat from a third-party rather than the person giving the warning), while the term &quot;threat&quot; is usually used when the action threatened would be unlawful when taken, or if the action, while lawful, is threatened for an improper purposes that amounts to blackmail (e.g. a threat to release legally taken photos showing that someone is having an affair if money is not paid). Also, a threat is generally made by the person who would take the action (or their agent), rather than a disinterested third-party. Incidentally, a threat to bring a lawsuit, since a proper purposes of a lawsuit is to secure money from someone, is not improper to connect to a demand to pay money.
Regardless of the context of the first solicitation, Officer Jones' second solicitation was made in willful refusal to accept Betty's unambiguous "no" for an answer; this is sexually coercive behavior, specifically postrefusal sexual persistence. If this question is assessed from the perspective of the "average" woman, then after her initial declination, extraction of a "yes" cannot be considered uncoerced. Here's a question: how many times does she have to say no before it starts to count? Before it counts against her finally being exhausted, harassed, or intimidated into capitulating? Because by that logic, he never has to stop; he can continue to harass her until he finally accomplishes his objective (grounds to arrest her) - in which case, why bother with the pretense? If it takes 200 "no's" to wear her down to "whatever", then the first 200 "no's" just didn't matter as much as the first "whatever", so why bother with the formality of pretending like the first mattered when it clearly does not? To demonstrate the significance of her initial "no, thanks" and his subsequent refusal to accept it from another perspective: if Betty and Jones were coworkers in the same office, if he continued to solicit her after being told no the first time, that would be the definition of sexual harassment on his part and it would not matter how genial or friendly or casual he thinks he's being; furthermore, if her workplace failed to intervene on her behalf, they would be engaging in sexually discriminatory behavior by creating a hostile work environment, regardless of how genial / friendly / casual, etc. It's hard to see how this could act as evidence of her having committed a crime in one context while being grounds for termination of his employment in another context. HTH.
Is this legal for the county to enforce? Yes. And can I sue if they try to enforce it? You could, but you would very likely lose your lawsuit. A more fruitful approach would be to go to the county planning board and seek a variance to permit you to do what you want to do.
What is the legality of someone putting a virtual hot spot on your property without permission? I know we are in uncharted territory but how would this compare to setting up a contest that would require going on your property without permission? The existence of a game does not authorise entrance to private property, barring some agreement with the owner. That is - if it is trespassing without Pokemon Go (or, for that matter Ingress), then it is trespassing while playing them. That being said, the creators of the game are free to place their in-game targets anywhere they please, and it is hard to imagine a scenario where they would be liable for their users' actions, unless they have not taken reasonable steps to prevent their users from doing so - Niantic clearly instruct their users to respect the law and also, only require that their users be within a certain distance of these points, not actually be at them. Is it currently legal to say Go to person X house and touch a tree? If not, does the current law extend to augmented reality? Nope, unless it can be done without entering private property (which includes the airspace above the property, to some extent). And there are no special cases for augmented reality. Now, there is some possibility that if they create a private nuisance - by being too loud, or by otherwise interfering with the use of the property - owners of a property could bring a claim in tort against players for doing so - or charges for a public nuisance, when done in a public area.
There are two cases to distinguish: information that the other party does not want to give without court order, and information that the other party may not give without court order. Only the former case matters, of course, since the latter by definition requires a court order. So, if the other party is legally capable of giving the information, but it's commercially not sensible for them, then you'll need to sweeten the deal. And that's business, not a legal question anymore. In other words: there's no legal instrument that's at the same time equal to a court order but also different from one. When you need a court order, there's no alternative to a court order.
Short Answer: If there are signs prohibiting non-guests then it's more than likely to be misdemeanor in the first degree. Long Answer: The offence is one of trespass contrary to Florida's TITLE XLVI, Chapter 810.09: (1)(a) A person who, without being authorized, licensed, or invited, willfully enters upon or remains in any property other than a structure or conveyance: 1. As to which notice against entering or remaining is given, either by actual communication to the offender or by posting, fencing, or cultivation as described in s. 810.011; or 2. [omitted] commits the offense of trespass on property other than a structure or conveyance. ;(b) [omitted] (2)(a) Except as provided in this subsection, trespass on property other than a structure or conveyance is a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.0821 or s. 775.0832. The general power of arrest, at 901.15, requires a warrant for this offence unless certain conditions are met, as explained here: When can an officer in Florida make a warrantless arrest for a misdemeanor? As a general rule, a warrant is required for a misdemeanor arrest unless: all of the elements of the misdemeanor were committed in the officer’s presence; or the officer has probable cause for the arrest and the misdemeanor is on the list of statutory exceptions found in Section 901.15, F.S.; or the officer has reasonable grounds to believe that the subject has violated probation or community control in any material respect (sometimes called the “COP VOP” exception contained in Section 948.06). 1 The more likely punishments, based on a lack of specific detail, seem to be: For a misdemeanor of the first degree, by a definite term of imprisonment not exceeding 1 year 2Or: [not exceeding] $1,000, when the conviction is of a misdemeanor of the first degree Note that these punishments are maximums the court could impose if the hotel wanted to pursue the matter criminally.
united-states Speed limits can be enforced by any means (except photo-radar) in most U.S. jurisdictions without notice that it is being used. Those laws are close to being uniform in the U.S. due to federal coordination on federally funded roads, even though state and local laws are what governs them directly. Some U.S. jurisdictions prohibit the issuance of photo-radar speeding tickets without notice before entering the photo-radar picture taking zone. I'd have to research further to see if New York City does. The purpose of the language on the sign is to make drivers more fearful of being caught in circumstances where they don't see someone trying to enforce the law, not to have greater legal effect.
It depends on the actual content of the tip and to what degree the police believe the tip to be reliable given the totality of the circumstances. I'll give two examples where tips (one actually anonymous, one deemed anonymous) were found to give probable cause or reasonable suspicion to support a search or seizure. Illinois v Gates 462 U.S. 213 (1983) established that the test for whether there is probable cause for issuance of a warrant is based on the "totality of the circumstances". In Gates, police received an anonymous letter disclosing that the defendant was selling drugs, along with some predictions about the defendant's future activity. After verifying that some of the predictions were correct, the police obtained a search warrant for the home. The court observed that "under the "totality of the circumstances" analysis, corroboration of details of an informant's tip by independent police work is of significant value." Navarette v California 572 U.S. ___ (2014) reiterated that "reasonable suspicion takes into account the totality of the circumstances, and depends upon both the content of information possessed by police and its degree of reliability. An anonymous tip alone seldom demonstrates sufficient reliability, but may do so under appropriate circumstances" (quoting from the syllabus, with internal citations and quotations removed). In Navarette, an 911 caller asserted that a truck with a particular appearance was driving erratically and had run her off the road. The court said: "Even assuming for present purposes that the 911 call was anonymous, we conclude that the call bore adequate indicia of reliability for the officer to credit the caller’s account. The officer was therefore justified in proceeding from the premise that the truck had, in fact, caused the caller’s car to be dangerously diverted from the highway." They also observed that "a 911 call has some features that allow for identifying and tracing callers, and thus provide some safeguards against making false reports with immunity."