New York v. Quarles
E238770
New York v. Quarles is a 1984 U.S. Supreme Court decision that created the "public safety" exception to the Miranda warning requirement, allowing certain unwarned statements to be admitted when needed to protect public safety.
All labels observed (2)
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T2151517 — 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: New York v. Quarles Context triple: [Dickerson v. United States, relatedCase, New York v. Quarles]
-
A.
Mapp v. Ohio
Mapp v. Ohio is a landmark 1961 U.S. Supreme Court case that applied the exclusionary rule to the states, holding that evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment cannot be used in state criminal prosecutions.
-
B.
United States v. Leon
United States v. Leon is a 1984 U.S. Supreme Court decision that established the "good faith" exception to the exclusionary rule in Fourth Amendment search and seizure cases.
-
C.
Miranda v. Arizona
Miranda v. Arizona is a landmark 1966 U.S. Supreme Court case that established the requirement for police to inform criminal suspects of their rights to remain silent and to have an attorney present during custodial interrogations.
-
D.
Katz v. United States
Katz v. United States is a landmark 1967 Supreme Court case that redefined Fourth Amendment protections by establishing that the amendment safeguards people’s reasonable expectations of privacy, not just physical places.
-
E.
Illinois v. Gates
Illinois v. Gates is a 1983 U.S. Supreme Court decision that established the "totality of the circumstances" test for determining whether an informant’s tip provides probable cause for issuing a search warrant.
- 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: New York v. Quarles Target entity description: New York v. Quarles is a 1984 U.S. Supreme Court decision that created the "public safety" exception to the Miranda warning requirement, allowing certain unwarned statements to be admitted when needed to protect public safety.
-
A.
Mapp v. Ohio
Mapp v. Ohio is a landmark 1961 U.S. Supreme Court case that applied the exclusionary rule to the states, holding that evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment cannot be used in state criminal prosecutions.
-
B.
United States v. Leon
United States v. Leon is a 1984 U.S. Supreme Court decision that established the "good faith" exception to the exclusionary rule in Fourth Amendment search and seizure cases.
-
C.
Miranda v. Arizona
Miranda v. Arizona is a landmark 1966 U.S. Supreme Court case that established the requirement for police to inform criminal suspects of their rights to remain silent and to have an attorney present during custodial interrogations.
-
D.
Katz v. United States
Katz v. United States is a landmark 1967 Supreme Court case that redefined Fourth Amendment protections by establishing that the amendment safeguards people’s reasonable expectations of privacy, not just physical places.
-
E.
Illinois v. Gates
Illinois v. Gates is a 1983 U.S. Supreme Court decision that established the "totality of the circumstances" test for determining whether an informant’s tip provides probable cause for issuing a search warrant.
- F. None of above. chosen
Statements (47)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
Miranda doctrine case
ⓘ
United States Supreme Court case ⓘ criminal procedure case ⓘ |
| areaOfLaw |
constitutional criminal procedure
ⓘ
self-incrimination ⓘ |
| arguedDate | 1983-10-05 ⓘ |
| citation | 467 U.S. 649 ⓘ |
| concurrenceBy |
Lewis F. Powell Jr.
ⓘ
Sandra Day O’Connor ⓘ |
| constitutionalProvision |
Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution
ⓘ
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution ⓘ
linked to:
Fourteenth Amendment
|
| court | Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ |
| decisionDate | 1984-06-12 ⓘ |
| decisionType | majority opinion with concurrence and dissent ⓘ |
| dissentBy |
Harry A. Blackmun
ⓘ
John Paul Stevens ⓘ Thurgood Marshall ⓘ William J. Brennan Jr. ⓘ |
| factsSummary |
Police officers in Queens, New York, pursued and arrested Benjamin Quarles in a supermarket and questioned him about the location of a gun before giving Miranda warnings.
ⓘ
linked to:
NYPD Police Officer
|
| fullName | New York v. Quarles ⓘ |
| holding |
Statements obtained without Miranda warnings are admissible when police questioning is reasonably prompted by a concern for public safety.
ⓘ
The Court recognized a public safety exception to the requirement that Miranda warnings be given before custodial interrogation. ⓘ
linked to:
New York v. Quarles
|
| impact | limited the exclusionary rule for unwarned statements in emergency situations ⓘ |
| jurisdiction |
United States
ⓘ
linked to:
United States of America
|
| keyPhrase | public safety exception ⓘ |
| legalIssue |
admissibility of unwarned statements
ⓘ
public safety exception to Miranda ⓘ scope of Miranda warnings ⓘ |
| majorityJoiner |
Byron R. White
ⓘ
John Paul Stevens ⓘ Lewis F. Powell Jr. ⓘ Sandra Day O’Connor ⓘ Warren E. Burger ⓘ |
| majorityOpinionBy | William H. Rehnquist ⓘ |
| originatingJurisdiction |
State of New York
ⓘ
linked to:
U.S. state of New York
|
| page | 649 ⓘ |
| party |
Benjamin Quarles
ⓘ
linked to:
Benjamin Arthur Quarles
State of New York ⓘ
linked to:
U.S. state of New York
|
| policeQuestioningContext | custodial interrogation ⓘ |
| precedentStatus | binding precedent in U.S. federal courts ⓘ |
| publicSafetyExceptionCreated | yes ⓘ |
| relatedDoctrine | Miranda v. Arizona ⓘ |
| reporter | United States Reports ⓘ |
| result | conviction reinstated ⓘ |
| subsequentCitationFrequency | frequently cited in criminal procedure cases ⓘ |
| volume | 467 ⓘ |
| yearDecided | 1984 ⓘ |
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: New York v. Quarles Description of subject: New York v. Quarles is a 1984 U.S. Supreme Court decision that created the "public safety" exception to the Miranda warning requirement, allowing certain unwarned statements to be admitted when needed to protect public safety.
Referenced by (3)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.
New York v. Quarles
→
holding
→
The Court recognized a public safety exception to the requirement that Miranda warnings be given before custodial interrogation.
ⓘ
linked to: New York v. Quarles