Goldman v. United States
E545158
Goldman v. United States is a 1942 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld warrantless electronic eavesdropping based on a narrow, property-based interpretation of the Fourth Amendment, later limited by the Court’s shift to a privacy-based approach.
All labels observed (1)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| Goldman v. United States canonical | 2 |
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T5770454 — 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: Goldman v. United States Context triple: [Katz v. United States, overruledPrecedentInPart, Goldman v. United States]
-
A.
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.
-
B.
Bond v. United States
Bond v. United States is a 2011 U.S. Supreme Court case that clarified an individual’s ability to raise Tenth Amendment challenges to federal statutes, reinforcing limits on federal power in favor of state sovereignty.
-
C.
Gelbard v. United States
Gelbard v. United States is a 1972 U.S. Supreme Court case that addressed whether grand jury witnesses could refuse to answer questions based on the government's alleged illegal use of wiretap evidence.
-
D.
Roth v. United States
Roth v. United States is a landmark 1957 U.S. Supreme Court decision that redefined the legal standard for obscenity under the First Amendment.
-
E.
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.
- 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: Goldman v. United States Target entity description: Goldman v. United States is a 1942 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld warrantless electronic eavesdropping based on a narrow, property-based interpretation of the Fourth Amendment, later limited by the Court’s shift to a privacy-based approach.
-
A.
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.
-
B.
Bond v. United States
Bond v. United States is a 2011 U.S. Supreme Court case that clarified an individual’s ability to raise Tenth Amendment challenges to federal statutes, reinforcing limits on federal power in favor of state sovereignty.
-
C.
Gelbard v. United States
Gelbard v. United States is a 1972 U.S. Supreme Court case that addressed whether grand jury witnesses could refuse to answer questions based on the government's alleged illegal use of wiretap evidence.
-
D.
Roth v. United States
Roth v. United States is a landmark 1957 U.S. Supreme Court decision that redefined the legal standard for obscenity under the First Amendment.
-
E.
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.
- F. None of above. chosen
Statements (37)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf | United States Supreme Court case ⓘ |
| approachToFourthAmendment |
property-based interpretation
ⓘ
trespass-based interpretation ⓘ |
| areaOfLaw |
constitutional criminal procedure
ⓘ
search and seizure law ⓘ |
| citation | 316 U.S. 129 ⓘ |
| constitutionalProvisionInterpreted | Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution ⓘ |
| country |
United States
ⓘ
linked to:
United States of America
|
| court | Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ |
| decisionYear | 1942 ⓘ |
| factPattern |
federal agents used a detectaphone placed against a wall to overhear conversations in an adjoining office
ⓘ
no physical penetration of the defendants’ office occurred during the surveillance ⓘ |
| holding | Warrantless electronic eavesdropping that does not involve physical trespass on a defendant’s property does not violate the Fourth Amendment ⓘ |
| impact |
narrowed the scope of Fourth Amendment protections against non-trespassory surveillance
ⓘ
served as controlling precedent on electronic eavesdropping until Katz v. United States ⓘ |
| jurisdiction | United States federal law ⓘ |
| languageOfDecision | English ⓘ |
| laterLimitedBy |
Katz v. United States
ⓘ
shift to privacy-based Fourth Amendment doctrine ⓘ |
| legalIssue |
legality of warrantless electronic eavesdropping
ⓘ
scope of Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures ⓘ |
| majorityOpinionAuthor | Justice Harlan F. Stone ⓘ |
| overruledInPartBy | Katz v. United States ⓘ |
| parties |
Goldman
ⓘ
United States ⓘ
linked to:
United States of America
|
| precedentFor | permissibility of certain forms of electronic surveillance without a warrant ⓘ |
| reasoning | Fourth Amendment was violated only by physical intrusion into a constitutionally protected area ⓘ |
| relatedCase |
Katz v. United States
ⓘ
Olmstead v. United States ⓘ |
| relatedConcept |
electronic surveillance
ⓘ
reasonable expectation of privacy ⓘ wiretapping jurisprudence ⓘ |
| status | partially superseded precedent ⓘ |
| subjectMatter |
federal criminal investigation techniques
ⓘ
use of electronic listening devices by law enforcement ⓘ |
| subsequentDoctrinalDevelopment | transition from property-based to privacy-based Fourth Amendment analysis ⓘ |
| vote | 5–4 decision ⓘ |
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: Goldman v. United States Description of subject: Goldman v. United States is a 1942 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld warrantless electronic eavesdropping based on a narrow, property-based interpretation of the Fourth Amendment, later limited by the Court’s shift to a privacy-based approach.
Referenced by (2)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.