United States v. Donovan
E331164
United States v. Donovan is a U.S. Supreme Court case that clarified the requirements and scope of federal wiretap procedures and notice obligations under Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968.
All labels observed (1)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| United States v. Donovan canonical | 1 |
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T3148311 — resolving that mention is where its identity was fixed. The disambiguator weighed these candidate entities and picked the highlighted one (or “None”, minting a new entity). This is how homonymy is resolved: the same surface form can point to different entities.
NED1
Entity disambiguation (via context triple)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: United States v. Donovan Context triple: [Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, hasBeenInterpretedIn, United States v. Donovan]
-
A.
Dennis v. United States
Dennis v. United States is a landmark 1951 U.S. Supreme Court decision that upheld the convictions of Communist Party leaders under the Smith Act, significantly shaping First Amendment jurisprudence on speech advocating the overthrow of the government.
-
B.
United States v. Gratiot
United States v. Gratiot is an 1840 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld broad federal authority over public lands under the Constitution’s Property Clause.
-
C.
United States v. Eichman
United States v. Eichman is a 1990 U.S. Supreme Court case that struck down a federal law banning flag desecration as unconstitutional under the First Amendment’s protection of free speech.
-
D.
Dickerson v. United States
Dickerson v. United States is a 2000 U.S. Supreme Court case that reaffirmed the constitutional basis of Miranda warnings and held that Congress could not overrule Miranda v. Arizona by statute.
-
E.
United States v. Comstock
United States v. Comstock is a 2010 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld Congress’s authority to civilly commit mentally ill, sexually dangerous federal prisoners beyond their release date under the Constitution’s Necessary and Proper Clause.
- F. None of above. chosen
- G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.
NED2
Entity disambiguation (via description)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: United States v. Donovan Target entity description: United States v. Donovan is a U.S. Supreme Court case that clarified the requirements and scope of federal wiretap procedures and notice obligations under Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968.
-
A.
Dennis v. United States
Dennis v. United States is a landmark 1951 U.S. Supreme Court decision that upheld the convictions of Communist Party leaders under the Smith Act, significantly shaping First Amendment jurisprudence on speech advocating the overthrow of the government.
-
B.
United States v. Gratiot
United States v. Gratiot is an 1840 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld broad federal authority over public lands under the Constitution’s Property Clause.
-
C.
United States v. Eichman
United States v. Eichman is a 1990 U.S. Supreme Court case that struck down a federal law banning flag desecration as unconstitutional under the First Amendment’s protection of free speech.
-
D.
Dickerson v. United States
Dickerson v. United States is a 2000 U.S. Supreme Court case that reaffirmed the constitutional basis of Miranda warnings and held that Congress could not overrule Miranda v. Arizona by statute.
-
E.
United States v. Comstock
United States v. Comstock is a 2010 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld Congress’s authority to civilly commit mentally ill, sexually dangerous federal prisoners beyond their release date under the Constitution’s Necessary and Proper Clause.
- F. None of above. chosen
Statements (33)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
United States Supreme Court case
ⓘ
criminal procedure case ⓘ federal wiretap case ⓘ |
| appliesTo | federal criminal investigations involving electronic surveillance ⓘ |
| areaOfLaw |
Fourth Amendment law
ⓘ
criminal procedure ⓘ electronic surveillance law ⓘ |
| citation | 429 U.S. 413 ⓘ |
| clarifies |
scope of identification requirements for individuals in wiretap applications under Title III
ⓘ
scope of post-interception notice obligations under Title III ⓘ |
| consequence |
Limited the circumstances under which wiretap evidence must be suppressed for technical violations of Title III.
ⓘ
Provided guidance to lower courts on interpreting Title III’s naming and notice requirements. ⓘ |
| country |
United States of America
ⓘ
surface form:
United States
|
| court | Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ |
| decisionDate | 1977 ⓘ |
| holding |
Failure to name all persons whose conversations are to be intercepted in a wiretap application does not necessarily require suppression of the evidence under Title III.
ⓘ
The notice provisions of Title III are designed to protect privacy interests but are not jurisdictional prerequisites whose violation automatically mandates suppression. ⓘ The statutory requirement to identify persons in a wiretap application extends only to those individuals whom the government has probable cause to believe are committing the offense and whose communications are to be intercepted. ⓘ Title III does not require suppression of wiretap evidence solely because the government failed to serve post-interception notice on all individuals whose conversations were intercepted. ⓘ |
| interpretsStatute |
18 U.S.C. § 2518
ⓘ
18 U.S.C. §§ 2510–2520 ⓘ |
| jurisdiction | United States federal law ⓘ |
| legalRule |
Omissions in naming individuals in a wiretap application are evaluated under the statutory framework of Title III rather than under a per se exclusionary rule.
ⓘ
Post-interception notice under Title III is required to be given to persons named in the order or application, but failure to notify unnamed intercepted parties does not automatically invalidate the interception. ⓘ Probable cause is required to identify a person in a wiretap application under Title III. ⓘ |
| parties |
Donovan
ⓘ
United States of America ⓘ
surface form:
United States
|
| relatedTo | Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 ⓘ |
| statutoryContext | Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 ⓘ |
| topic |
federal wiretap procedures
ⓘ
notice obligations in electronic surveillance ⓘ probable cause in wiretap applications ⓘ suppression of evidence ⓘ |
How these facts were elicited
The pipeline generated the facts above by prompting gpt-5.1 with this entity's name + description and the instruction below.
Instruction
You are a knowledge base construction expert. Given a subject entity and a description of it, return factual statements that you know for the subject as a JSON list of dictionaries(triples), where keys must be "subject", "predicate" and "object". The number of facts may be very high, between 25 to 50 or more, for very popular subjects. For less popular subjects, the number of facts can be very low, like 5 or 10. # Requirements - If you don't know the subject at all, return an empty list. - If the subject is not a named entity, return an empty list. - Include at least one triple where predicate is "instanceOf". - Do not get too wordy. - Separate several objects into multiple triples with one object.
Input
Subject: United States v. Donovan Description of subject: United States v. Donovan is a U.S. Supreme Court case that clarified the requirements and scope of federal wiretap procedures and notice obligations under Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968.
Referenced by (1)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.
Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968
→
hasBeenInterpretedIn
→
United States v. Donovan
ⓘ