Options for dealing with smoking neighbors I live in the city limits of Seattle. My next-door neighbors smoke cigarettes and marijuana outside their house multiple times a day, with one reliable smoke session between 10 and 10:30 PM. Due to the terrain and prevailing air flows, their smoke flows directly around and past my house on all sides (it's not clear to me if it depends on whether they do their smoking in the front yard, back yard, or what, but suffice it to say that smoke regularly comes on all sides). As we don't have air conditioning, in the summer we cool our house at night by opening windows and running fans to circulate air. Needless to say, this means that when the neighbors light up, their smoke heads straight into our house, an extremely objectionable situation for us. It is not a faint whiff. Do we have any legal options to try to put a stop to this? Are there any laws along the lines of "quiet enjoyment of my own home" that could help? Even though marijuana is not illegal in Washington state at the state level, does the fact that it is still illegal at the federal level make a difference? I know for a fact that the neighbor rents. If I were able to get in touch with their landlord, could there be any action that the landlord could be forced to take to deal with the tenants? The neighbors are not the type to care about the experience of others or to care much about observing inconvenient laws. One of their close relatives (who lives in the next house farther away) owns a marijuana shop. Their children have bullied mine, and they were unapologetic and angry when approached about it rather than open and receptive. If we have no legal options here, then something is wrong. It's ridiculous that we would have recourse about objectionably loud noises, but not about sending smoke into our very bedrooms when we're trying to cool off. [Help with tags would be appreciated.]
One option is an odor complaint filed with pscleanair, however Seattle's Department of Planning and Development opines that marijuana smell is not harmful. You can always try suing -- nuisance, breach of statutory duty to keep the premises habitable, breach of the common law covenant of peaceful enjoyment, negligence, harassment, battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress – these guys (non-smokers) are not very encouraging about legal options. Also trespass, which was the first thing that came to my mind but they didn't mention. Merrill v. Bosser, No. 05-4239 COCE 53 (Broward County Ct., June 29, 2005) is an example of successful litigation based on trespass.
Theft is of course illegal in all US states, and pretty much every other jurisdiction. In the US that is a matter of state law, not federal. It could be reported to the local police, but it might be hard to prove. Both landlord/tenant law and privacy law are largely matters of state law in the US, not federal law. Such laws vary a good deal in different states. In many states a landlord is allowed to enter the rented premises, usually on "reasonable" notice, or without notice if there is an emergency. If the landlord actually lives in another part of the house, and simply rents a room to the tenant, the landlord may be able to enter the room more freely than if it was a separate apartment or house. In many cases where there is a written lease or rental agreement, it will specify under what conditions the landlord or landlord's agent may enter, and how much notice is required. What does the lease in the current case say about that?
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.
You could sue them for commercially exploiting your image without permission, so the waiver is necessary. It is entirely legal to require of tenants (even if weird) that they be part of an advertising campaign, in a specified way: it's also your right to refuse to sign. There is a minuscule chance that there is a local ordinance prohibiting such a clause.
Indeed, article 3.24 of the Arbeidsomstandighedenbesluit: Toiletten en wastafels In een bedrijf of inrichting zijn in de nabijheid van de ruimten waar de werknemers hun werkzaamheden verrichten een voldoende aantal toiletten aanwezig. In of in de onmiddellijke nabijheid van de ruimten waarin de toiletten zich bevinden zijn voldoende wastafels. De toiletten of het gebruik van de toiletten zijn naar seksen gescheiden. My translation (intentionally less idiomatic than it might be in order to parallel the Dutch word order): Toilets and lavatories In a business or facility there are in the vicinity of the areas where the workers perform their work a sufficient number of toilets present. In, or in the immediate vicinity of, the areas where the toilets are, there are sufficient lavatories. The toilets or the use of the toilets are segregated by sex. It's a very long law, so I haven't read it all, but it doesn't seem to impose a penalty on people who disregard the sex segregation of the toilets. I suspect that it imposes a responsibility on the employer to enforce the segregation, and presumably a penalty could be imposed on the employer for failing to do so. I do not know what mechanisms would be available to the employer to penalize an employee who uses the wrong toilet. I don't know anything about the catering industry, and I cannot infer why you ask about it specifically. If you're asking about toilets provided by such businesses for their customers, however, I suspect it's likely to be governed by another law. (I further suspect that sex-segregated toilets for customers are optional in at least some circumstances, since small bars and restaurants often have only one toilet.)
In general, people have less expectation of privacy in cars than in their homes. To challenge a search and/or seizure under the Fourth Amendment, a person must have standing - the right to sue (that is, you must have had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the place where the search happened; if you didn't, no standing - can't claim your privacy was violated if you had no privacy). The US Circuit Courts are split on the issue of unauthorized rental drivers and whether they have the same reasonable expectation of privacy as the authorized driver of a rental car would have. Some Circuits allow the unauthorized driver to challenge a car search if the authorized driver gave them permission. Some Circuits look only at the agreement and if the driver isn't authorized on that, they're out of luck. The 6th Circuit is more case-by-case, with a presumption that driver can't challenge the search that can be overcome based on the facts. (All this info from US v. Haywood, 324 F.3d 514) There's a current case before the Supreme Court (argued January 9, 2018), Byrd v. US, on this very issue. This SCOTUSblog page has a lot of information on the case. Edited to add: Texas is in the Fifth Circuit, which follows the rule that unauthorized drivers don't have standing to challenge a search/seizure even with the authorized driver's permission to drive the car; unauthorized drivers of rental cars don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy because they lack a possessory interest in the car and/or they're violating the rental agreement. Basically, even though it seems the cops' stop of the car would've violated the Fourth Amendment if he were the authorized driver, since this happened in Texas, he's not going to be able to challenge the stop. IMO, this is incredibly unjust especially when the cops admitted there was no probable cause, so hopefully the Supreme Court makes this rule obsolete and allows unauthorized drivers to exercise their Fourth Amendment rights. Some law review articles on the topic of unauthorized rental drivers: "Hertz and the Fourth Amendment" "Resolving a Three-Way Circuit Split"
Growing marijuana is very often legally classed as "manufacture of a controlled substance." In criminal law, "manufacture" tends to be explicitly defined to include cultivation, but this is in fact a reasonably common use of the term (it doesn't have to mean producing with machinery). And so it's extremely unlikely that anyone will be convinced that you even might have thought the agreement didn't cover growing marijuana. The intent of the parties is fairly clear there.
I'm based in England, but I'm sure the principle is similar in Canada. The night club or concert venue is private property. When someone owns or rents private property one of the main things they are buying is the right to control who is present on that property, and generally they can use reasonable force to remove people who are not authorised. Security guards generally act as agents for a property owner, tenant or similar.