California v. Hodari D.
E1470904
UNEXPLORED
California v. Hodari D. is a 1991 U.S. Supreme Court decision that narrowed the definition of a "seizure" under the Fourth Amendment by holding that a suspect is not seized until physically restrained or submits to a show of police authority.
All labels observed (1)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| California v. Hodari D. canonical | 1 |
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T21189977 — 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: California v. Hodari D. Context triple: [Illinois v. Wardlow, relatedCase, California v. Hodari D.]
-
A.
Hurtado v. California
Hurtado v. California is an 1884 U.S. Supreme Court case that held the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause does not require states to use grand jury indictments in criminal prosecutions.
-
B.
Illinois v. Caballes
Illinois v. Caballes is a 2005 U.S. Supreme Court case holding that a dog sniff conducted during a lawful traffic stop does not violate the Fourth Amendment when it does not prolong the stop or reveal information other than the presence of contraband.
-
C.
Hurd v. Hodge
Hurd v. Hodge is a 1948 U.S. Supreme Court case that held racially restrictive covenants in property deeds could not be judicially enforced in the District of Columbia because such enforcement would violate the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
-
D.
Garcetti v. Ceballos
Garcetti v. Ceballos is a 2006 U.S. Supreme Court decision holding that public employees do not have First Amendment protection for speech made pursuant to their official job duties.
-
E.
Riley v. California
Riley v. California is a landmark 2014 U.S. Supreme Court decision holding that police generally must obtain a warrant before searching digital information on a cell phone seized during an arrest.
- 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: California v. Hodari D. Target entity description: California v. Hodari D. is a 1991 U.S. Supreme Court decision that narrowed the definition of a "seizure" under the Fourth Amendment by holding that a suspect is not seized until physically restrained or submits to a show of police authority.
-
A.
Hurtado v. California
Hurtado v. California is an 1884 U.S. Supreme Court case that held the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause does not require states to use grand jury indictments in criminal prosecutions.
-
B.
Illinois v. Caballes
Illinois v. Caballes is a 2005 U.S. Supreme Court case holding that a dog sniff conducted during a lawful traffic stop does not violate the Fourth Amendment when it does not prolong the stop or reveal information other than the presence of contraband.
-
C.
Hurd v. Hodge
Hurd v. Hodge is a 1948 U.S. Supreme Court case that held racially restrictive covenants in property deeds could not be judicially enforced in the District of Columbia because such enforcement would violate the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
-
D.
Garcetti v. Ceballos
Garcetti v. Ceballos is a 2006 U.S. Supreme Court decision holding that public employees do not have First Amendment protection for speech made pursuant to their official job duties.
-
E.
Riley v. California
Riley v. California is a landmark 2014 U.S. Supreme Court decision holding that police generally must obtain a warrant before searching digital information on a cell phone seized during an arrest.
- F. None of above. chosen
Referenced by (1)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.