Olmstead v. United States
E545157
Olmstead v. United States was a 1928 U.S. Supreme Court case that held warrantless wiretapping did not violate the Fourth Amendment, a stance later curtailed by modern privacy jurisprudence.
All labels observed (4)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| Olmstead v. United States canonical | 4 |
| Olmstead v. L.C. | 1 |
| Roy Olmstead v. United States | 1 |
| U.S. Supreme Court decision Olmstead v. L.C. (1999) | 1 |
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T5770453 — 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: Olmstead v. United States Context triple: [Katz v. United States, overruledPrecedentInPart, Olmstead v. United States]
-
A.
Abrams v. United States
Abrams v. United States was a 1919 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld the conviction of antiwar activists under federal law and is best known for Justice Holmes’s famous dissent articulating the “marketplace of ideas” concept in free speech jurisprudence.
-
B.
Printz v. United States
Printz v. United States is a 1997 U.S. Supreme Court decision that limited federal power by holding that Congress cannot compel state or local officials to implement federal regulatory programs.
-
C.
Reynolds v. United States
Reynolds v. United States is an 1879 U.S. Supreme Court case that established the distinction between protected religious belief and regulable religiously motivated conduct, holding that the Free Exercise Clause does not excuse individuals from compliance with otherwise valid criminal laws such as those banning polygamy.
-
D.
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.
-
E.
Bolling v. Sharpe
Bolling v. Sharpe is a 1954 U.S. Supreme Court case that held racial segregation in Washington, D.C. public schools unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process 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: Olmstead v. United States Target entity description: Olmstead v. United States was a 1928 U.S. Supreme Court case that held warrantless wiretapping did not violate the Fourth Amendment, a stance later curtailed by modern privacy jurisprudence.
-
A.
Abrams v. United States
Abrams v. United States was a 1919 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld the conviction of antiwar activists under federal law and is best known for Justice Holmes’s famous dissent articulating the “marketplace of ideas” concept in free speech jurisprudence.
-
B.
Printz v. United States
Printz v. United States is a 1997 U.S. Supreme Court decision that limited federal power by holding that Congress cannot compel state or local officials to implement federal regulatory programs.
-
C.
Reynolds v. United States
Reynolds v. United States is an 1879 U.S. Supreme Court case that established the distinction between protected religious belief and regulable religiously motivated conduct, holding that the Free Exercise Clause does not excuse individuals from compliance with otherwise valid criminal laws such as those banning polygamy.
-
D.
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.
-
E.
Bolling v. Sharpe
Bolling v. Sharpe is a 1954 U.S. Supreme Court case that held racial segregation in Washington, D.C. public schools unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
- F. None of above. chosen
Statements (49)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
Prohibition-era case
ⓘ
U.S. Supreme Court case ⓘ criminal procedure case ⓘ |
| areaOfLaw |
constitutional law
ⓘ
criminal law ⓘ privacy law ⓘ |
| arguedYear | 1927 ⓘ |
| citation | 277 U.S. 438 ⓘ |
| constitutionalProvisionInterpreted |
Fifth Amendment
ⓘ
Fourth Amendment ⓘ |
| country |
United States
ⓘ
linked to:
United States of America
|
| court | Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ |
| decidedYear | 1928 ⓘ |
| decisionDate | 1928-06-04 ⓘ |
| dissentingOpinionBy |
George H. Butler
ⓘ
Harlan F. Stone ⓘ
linked to:
Justice Harlan F. Stone
Louis D. Brandeis ⓘ
linked to:
Justice Louis D. Brandeis
Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. ⓘ |
| era | Prohibition era in the United States ⓘ |
| factsSummary |
Evidence from the wiretaps was used to convict Olmstead and others of violating the National Prohibition Act
ⓘ
Federal agents wiretapped telephone lines used by Roy Olmstead and others suspected of bootlegging without obtaining judicial warrants ⓘ |
| fullCaseName |
Roy Olmstead v. United States
ⓘ
linked to:
Olmstead v. United States
|
| holding |
The Fourth Amendment was interpreted to protect material things, not conversations
ⓘ
Warrantless wiretapping of telephone conversations conducted from outside the premises did not violate the Fourth Amendment ⓘ |
| impact |
Narrowly construed the scope of the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures
ⓘ
Permitted warrantless wiretapping by federal agents so long as there was no physical trespass ⓘ |
| joinedByInMajority |
Edward T. Sanford
ⓘ
linked to:
Edward Terry Sanford
George Sutherland ⓘ James C. McReynolds ⓘ
linked to:
Justice James C. McReynolds
Pierce Butler ⓘ Willis Van Devanter ⓘ |
| jurisdiction | federal ⓘ |
| laterTreatment | Substantially limited and effectively overruled by Katz v. United States (1967) ⓘ |
| legalIssue |
Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution
ⓘ
search and seizure ⓘ warrantless wiretapping ⓘ |
| majorityOpinionAuthorRole | Chief Justice of the United States ⓘ |
| majorityOpinionBy |
William Howard Taft
ⓘ
linked to:
President William Howard Taft
|
| page | 438 ⓘ |
| petitioner | Roy Olmstead ⓘ |
| reasoning |
No physical trespass into the defendants’ premises occurred when the government tapped telephone lines outside the building
ⓘ
The use of evidence obtained by wiretapping did not constitute an unlawful search or seizure under the Fourth Amendment as then interpreted ⓘ |
| relatedCase |
Goldman v. United States
ⓘ
Katz v. United States ⓘ |
| respondent |
United States
ⓘ
linked to:
United States of America
|
| subjectMatter |
electronic surveillance
ⓘ
wiretapping ⓘ |
| subsequentDoctrinalDevelopment | Replaced by the reasonable expectation of privacy test articulated in Katz v. United States ⓘ |
| volume | 277 U.S. ⓘ |
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: Olmstead v. United States Description of subject: Olmstead v. United States was a 1928 U.S. Supreme Court case that held warrantless wiretapping did not violate the Fourth Amendment, a stance later curtailed by modern privacy jurisprudence.
Referenced by (7)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.
linked to: Olmstead v. United States
linked to: Olmstead v. United States
linked to: Olmstead v. United States