In general, to who do you report *house* (not apartment) owners who make a ton of noise? As I took a bicycle trip from the horrible, noisy ghetto where I live, back to the fancy neighbourhood where I grew up, I was shocked by how many loudmouths there were. For instance, one of the neighbours to the house where I grew up had a bunch of teenagers listening to loud music outdoors, screaming and shouting in a very obnoxious manner. Is that generally &quot;allowed&quot;? I mean, in the West. If people live in an apartment and play loud music, bang hammers into the floor or otherwise make a horrible noise (something I know all too well...), it is at least theoretically possible to report it to the landlord/company that owns the building, and in theory, they will make them shut up. (Whether that's actually done in practice is a whole other matter. They appear to have ignored me for years.) But if somebody has a stand-alone house and there is no obvious &quot;community area&quot;, and they make a bunch of noise which affects me (assuming I live there in another house), who are you supposed to call then? The cops? I wouldn't want to involve the police, for multiple reasons. (Not wanting to make bitter enemies and face retaliation, social awkwardness, not wanting to generally telephone, not sure it's a &quot;crime&quot;, etc.) Is this some sort of terrible freedom that house owners have? Can they basically make as much noise as they want on their property? If so, the whole concept of &quot;peace and quiet&quot; that I always have associated with owning your own house goes straight out the window.
In the US, many municipalities have ordinances outlawing loud noises during some night hours. It may start as early as 10pm or as late as 11pm, and end as early as 6am or as late as 7am. Unfortunately, you have to deal with it in the way which you indicated you would rather not. The people to call to deal with this are the police. You don't have to be present when the police arrives. Nor will they tell the neighbors who called them. But if the noise ordinance is violated, it is their job to deal with it. During the day-time hours, it is generally legal to make loud noises unless they exceed some very extreme levels. But those extreme levels are probably more than anything casual teenagers can do. If the walls of the house are not visibly shaking, that's probably not it.
It is probably illegal, just not pursued. In the case of something like bank robbery, you'd have a victim that filed a police report. A murder would need to be discovered somehow - either a missing person report or a dead body. If the porn shoot happened somewhere that a member of the public saw it and subsequently filed a police report, the video could be used as evidence. Absent a report, the police simply have no reason to look into it (unless the police catches them in the act, but we probably don't see those videos posted online). Why would these public offenses go unreported? Perhaps nobody sees it. Perhaps the bystanders in the video are paid extras. Maybe they're filming in what appears to be public but is actually private property. Perhaps they have a permit to use a public space for this purpose. Perhaps they just got lucky. Again, there might be some confirmation bias here - you're not going to see as many videos of folks they catch breaking the law, since they will either be interrupted and stopped or (maybe) have their videos ordered taken down.
Not in the state of California. California law prohibits discrimination based on source of income; only discrimination based on amount of income is allowed. See the California Government Code, section 12955. It is not even legal to indicate a preferred source of income in the advertisement; landlords may ask prospective tenants about the source of income, but may not discriminate or indicate preference for a particular source (provided it's a lawful source). Also, you can't really force a city to re-zone based on "I'll make sure this bad thing doesn't happen." If the city doesn't want to re-zone, they won't re-zone. You have no right to force them to re-zone; this is especially true when the property was purchased under those zoning rules (if the buyer didn't like them, they didn't have to buy).
First off, you cannot booby trap your property, period. It is both illegal and tortious. But, as you noted, there are already questions/answers that deal with this issue. Sure enough, if the police get a no-knock search warrant, that in and of itself is the Court order allowing entry by any means necessary. When the officers, there by right of law, breach the outer perimeter and stop at the warnings, they will not be seeking any other court orders to have you allow them "safe entry". Their warrant gives them all the right they need, as probable cause of crime and violent intent or intent to destroy evidence was already presented to a judge. If, in real life, you actually put up signage or state explicitly that they're being forewarned that you intend to harm, trap, maim, or otherwise make it unsafe to enter; or that doing so will result in an attempt to destroy evidence, that is something they have already assumed (hence the seeking and granting of the no-knock vs. a regular search warrant). However, the signs in and of themselves are not protected speech, but rather overt threats, and that would put you in a very precarious position indeed. If the police get a "no knock" warrant (the most invasive, difficult to get warrants, whereby there is a grave risk of destruction of evidence or injury to persons), the police will ensure they have safe passage &ndash; they've come prepared for dangerous entry long before your signs, but once they see them, you could rest assured they will take them as they are intended: as a direct threat to their safety, and they will deploy a SWAT or other heavily armed entry team (who is usually there anyway for these dangerous entries). You could expect things like smoke/out canister and teargas, flash bangs, and heavily armed and well armored officers attempting to force you from your dwelling. Presumably, if you need to disarm traps to escape the situation, they can enter. Assuming you're home when they invade with chemical weapons, whether you come out or not, they will force you to disarm whatever booby trapping you may have in place that may destroy evidence, likely walking you in as their human shield in the event you're lying about any dangerous ones. That is probably your best case scenario. They may just decide to throw you through the perimeter once they get their hands on you, just to see what happens! If you don't exit and are home or if you are lucky enough to be out, the bomb squad, ATF, and SWAT will converge on your property in less than typical means. Because from your warning they can assume some incendiary or explosive device exists, bringing it into the jurisdiction of other agencies. If they cannot disarm the trap, they would send a robot in first to set it off, or cut through your roof, or knock down a wall &ndash; whatever it takes to get in without using a typical means of ingress/egress, so as not to chance your trap. Regardless, you can rest assured that they will get in, and you will pay for the trap you set for law enforcement. Further, to whatever charges you'd have been faced with from evidence flowing from the original warrant will now be added additional charges like attempted murder of a peace officer; if you have any roommates or known associates: conspiracy to do those things; attempted destruction of evidence, criminal interference with a police investigation ... all at a minimum. If anyone is actually harmed, your signage offers you no shield from criminal or tort liability, and you will be lucky to live through the experience once they get their hands on you. Police tend to not like being the targets of intentional maiming, dismemberment or death. You have to understand that, according to this hypothetical, you are intentionally trying to harm law enforcement, or destroy evidence of your dangerous criminal activity. These are not invaders, or intruders according to the law; they are the people whose job it is to enforce the laws, collect the evidence (if you weren't getting arrested pursuant to the fruits of the warrant, you certainly would be at that point). The signs themselves would make excellent exhibits in the coming case of State v. you. BTW: The only reason they have left John Joe Gray alone is that he knows the Henderson County Sheriff Ronny Brownlow, who has been told that the ATF, FBI, and State SWAT, would all be happy to enter and get or kill Mr. Gray if need be. Since the Sheriff never filed any federal charges, and has determined that he doesn't want to breach (and it's in his jurisdiction to determine this), the Sheriff, aware that Gray's entire family is holed up in the "compound", decided it's not worth going in. It's as well known as it is anomalous. When the police want in, and have the right to get in, they will get in. That Sheriff just decided it's not worthwhile.
The "Quiet Hours law" is part of environmental protection laws: it regulates noise immissions. In general, what is allowed differs quite a bit depending on zoning and day vs. night. E.g. in a purely industrial area outdoor noise immission may be up to 70 dB(A) any time of the day. Whereas in hospital or nursing home zones only 45 dB(A) during the day and 35 dB(A) during the night are allowed. It also depends on the type of noise source, e.g. construction noise has a longer night (20:00 - 7:00 compared to 22:00 - 6:00 for normal "commercial" noise sources) and some penalty for early/late day noise, commercial noise has a penalty* for early/late daytime and sundays; sports noise has day, night and quiet hours and they differ working days vs. sundays and holidays. There are no legal limits on noise emitted by children (incl. kindergarden, playgrounds), but neighborhood noise (party) does have restrictions, and machine-emitted noise has further restrictions. * penalties: some of these regulations use weighted sound pressure levels that upweight certain particularly disturbing characteristics of the noise (information content of noise, particular tones sticking out, impulse-type [sudden] noise, ...). Festivals and events are covered by the "recreational noise directive" (Freizeitlärmrichtlinie, state law) puts emphasis on communal planning as in don't put hospital and fair grounds or outdoor recreational swimming pool next to each other, keep some distance between the local skateboard ramp and residential housing. Also, the town market place (where fairs are held) would be an urban zone (or "core" zone) which has higher noise limits than a purely residential zone. Exceptions can be granted for rare (up to 18 days/year) events and festivals that are tightly bound to a particular location ("hohe Standortgebundenheit", e.g. Kieler Woche, Oktoberfest or the annual village fair, but also "moving" festivals like the Hessentag) or socially adequate and accepted. These exceptions can include moving the night hours up to 2 hours (usually only for Friday or Saturday evenings or evenings before public holidays). The higher the (expected) noise level and the more often, the more strictly the exception has to be evaluated. Also, not more than 2 weekends in a row are supposed to be subject to such rare events, and the neighboring residents have to be told (usually >= 2 weeks in advance). There are also technical measures such as focusing sound on the festival area and making sure loud speakers do not emit sound in other directions more than necessary. "sports grounds noise directive" (Sportanlagenlärmschutzverordnung) again, higher immission levels are allowed for rare events, rare being up to 18 days/year exceptions can be granted for sports events of major national or international importance, so when the soccer world cup came to Germany, residents had to put up with that. sometimes exceptions are granted by directive, e.g. public viewing during the 2018 soccer world cup Pubs are commercial businesses and subject to the TA Lärm, but sometimes somewhat less strict rules be used (e.g. see here for NRW). A pub thus cannot be in a purely residential zone: where you have a pub, you are at least in a general residential zone which has higher noise limits. Diskotheken (night clubs) are often in industrial zones. A private party is so-called neighborhood noise (Nachbarschaftslärm) and imission here is governed by state law, plus possibly communal bylaws and last but not least binding clauses in e.g. the rent contract. If there isn't any particular law (AFAIK, e.g. Hesse does not have a state law on this), there's the catch-all §117 OWiG on Inadmissable Noise: (1) Whoever, without a justified reason, or to an inadmissible extent, or to an extent avoidable under the circumstances, causes noise which is suitable to create considerable disturbance to the general public or to the neighbourhood, or to inflict harm upon the health of another, shall be deemed to have committed a regulatory offence. A common rule of thumb would be that between 22:00 - 6:00 and on Sundays or holidays you shouldn't do anything that can be heard outside your flat (Zimmerlautstärke). A typical practical approach is to tell your neighbours that you'll have a party and will they please excuse if there's some noise? Bonus points if you invite them. This doesn't change anything about legal noise levels, but it usually does the trick in terms of no neighbours complaining/not disturbing them. There are so-called silent holidays (again state law, e.g. NRW) with particularly heavy restrictions (no sports events, no markets/fairs/circus, no recreational events, ...)
I gather that the numerous ramifications you outline are merely contexts and that your main concern is about the application of contract law (contract law in the U.S. does not really vary among states). Thus, I will not really delve in the intricacies of --for instance-- privacy or copyright issues arising from the commercial use of a person's likeness that you mention in one of the scenarios. As a starting point, one needs to bear in mind that: a contract is an exchange of considerations under terms and conditions entered knowingly and willfully by the parties, which can be evidenced by the parties' subsequent conduct (that is, not just by signing a document); and a contract is unenforceable if it contravenes public policy and/or the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Accordingly, the questions are (1) whether a person knew or reasonably should have known about the terms &amp; conditions at or by the time of those events which trigger obligations pursuant to the contract; and (2) whether the provisions therein are unreasonable, illegal, or tantamount to a penalty, especially in the event that the party breaches or repudiates the alleged contract (see the Restatement (Second) of Contracts at § 356(2)). The scenario of house for sale entails various difficulties as per contract law and otherwise. Here are some of those issues: Are visitors properly (including "beforehand") notified about the "walkway clause"? If not, the contract is void because it cannot be said that visitors knew about &amp; accepted that condition. Does the house provide alternatives for lawful &amp; informed visitors to safely avoid the walkway? If not, then the seller/owner might end up incurring premises liability with respect to those visitors who get injured in making their reasonable effort not to trigger the "walkway clause". Is the house owner realistically able to prove that use of the walkway by lawful &amp; informed visitors is sufficiently "inconsistent with the offeror's ownership of offered property" so that triggering a house sale is a reasonable consequence (see Restatement at §69(2))? Is the owner-imposed mortgage rate compliant with state law pertaining to granting of credit &amp; loans? These exemplify only some of the burdensome complications when trying to enforce "contracts" which are extravagant or quite one-sided. Lastly, as a side note, the presumption that a person reading the poster and walking in the intended area does not thereby receive consideration is not necessarily accurate. As an example, the "intended area" could have been devised by an entity in the business of enjoyment and recreation, such as a private park. The person who deliberately walks in (regardless of whether he read the poster) certainly receives a consideration, which is the amusement or recreation for which the park was designed.
Unfortunately, the "but everyone does that" (BEDT) argument doesn't hold water as evidenced by prosecutions of looters. Would uploading this video be a copyright infringement? It would be hard to answer this part of the question without knowing where and from whom the clips had come from. If the clips came from a company like ESPN or a YouTuber that doesn't give you permission to be able to use their clips then yes this might be a copyright infringement. If you use video/clips that are labeled as creative commons then nt it wouldn't be an infringement. YouTube has a feature for this. Would my actions be fair use? First, we'll need to understand what fair-use is. Fair use is the ability to use copyright material under certain circumstances without permission. To best determine if using copyright-protected material in your work you should weigh it against the four factors of fair use. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; The nature of the copyrighted work; The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; The effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. More information about fair-use here Youtube outlines their fair use guidelines here
This recently came up in a local PA homeowner association. Legally they own the roads in their development, but they have erected stop signs to make it clear who has the right of way and asked the township police to enforce them. A resident challenged the right of the police to enforce traffic laws on private property, but lost his appeal (albeit at the municipal level). The judge explained that the residents and any visitors had a reasonable expectation that the traffic signs would be obeyed, and that therefore violating them was just as dangerous as violating them on public roads, and that the same law and penalties would therefore be applied.