word “unreasonably” is “widely used and well understood”); see also United States v. Woodard, 376 F.2d 136, 139 (7th Cir.1967) (upholding against vagueness challenge statute stating that a “person commits disorderly conduct when he knowingly ... does any act in such unreasonable manner as to alarm or disturb another and to provoke a breach of the peace”); see also Karlin v. Foust, 188 F.3d 446 (7th Cir.1999) (upholding against vagueness challenge Wisconsin abortion statute using term “reasonable medical judgment”). Precedent in this district and in the Wisconsin Supreme Court also indicates that the use of the word “unreasonably” in a noise ordinance is not so vague as to make the ordinance unconstitutional. In Milwaukee Mobilization for Survival v. Milwaukee County Park Com 743 (1995) (<HOLDING>); State v. Garren, 117 N.C.App. 393, 451 S.E.2d
recognizing that a state courts determination is not an unreasonable application of law merely because it is erroneous holding threeyear delay without mitigating circumstances was unreasonable holding that unreasonable noise is not vague because unreasonable denotes objectivity based on circumstances holding that the bia rule is unreasonable in this context holding that term unreasonable noise was not vague