Wolf v. Colorado
E90374
Wolf v. Colorado was a 1949 U.S. Supreme Court decision that held the Fourth Amendment’s exclusionary rule did not apply to the states, a position later reversed by Mapp v. Ohio.
All labels observed (3)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| Wolf v. Colorado canonical | 5 |
| Julius A. Wolf v. People of the State of Colorado | 1 |
| Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U.S. 25 (1949) | 1 |
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T756437 — 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: Wolf v. Colorado Context triple: [Mapp v. Ohio, overruledPrecedent, Wolf v. Colorado]
-
A.
Colorado Department of State v. Baca
Colorado Department of State v. Baca is a U.S. federal court case addressing whether states can remove or sanction presidential electors who refuse to vote in accordance with their state's popular vote in the Electoral College.
-
B.
South Dakota v. Dole
South Dakota v. Dole is a 1987 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld Congress’s power to condition federal highway funds on states adopting a minimum drinking age of 21, helping define the scope of the federal spending power.
-
C.
Chiafalo v. Washington
Chiafalo v. Washington is a 2020 U.S. Supreme Court case that unanimously upheld states’ authority to penalize or replace “faithless electors” who do not vote in line with their state’s popular vote in presidential elections.
-
D.
Baldwin v. Fish and Game Commission of Montana
Baldwin v. Fish and Game Commission of Montana is a 1978 U.S. Supreme Court decision that upheld Montana’s higher elk-hunting license fees for nonresidents and narrowed the scope of the Privileges and Immunities Clause to exclude purely recreational activities.
-
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: Wolf v. Colorado Target entity description: Wolf v. Colorado was a 1949 U.S. Supreme Court decision that held the Fourth Amendment’s exclusionary rule did not apply to the states, a position later reversed by Mapp v. Ohio.
-
A.
Colorado Department of State v. Baca
Colorado Department of State v. Baca is a U.S. federal court case addressing whether states can remove or sanction presidential electors who refuse to vote in accordance with their state's popular vote in the Electoral College.
-
B.
South Dakota v. Dole
South Dakota v. Dole is a 1987 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld Congress’s power to condition federal highway funds on states adopting a minimum drinking age of 21, helping define the scope of the federal spending power.
-
C.
Chiafalo v. Washington
Chiafalo v. Washington is a 2020 U.S. Supreme Court case that unanimously upheld states’ authority to penalize or replace “faithless electors” who do not vote in line with their state’s popular vote in presidential elections.
-
D.
Baldwin v. Fish and Game Commission of Montana
Baldwin v. Fish and Game Commission of Montana is a 1978 U.S. Supreme Court decision that upheld Montana’s higher elk-hunting license fees for nonresidents and narrowed the scope of the Privileges and Immunities Clause to exclude purely recreational activities.
-
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 (46)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
Fourth Amendment case
ⓘ
United States Supreme Court case ⓘ criminal procedure case ⓘ |
| argued | 1948-10-19 ⓘ |
| citation | 338 U.S. 25 ⓘ |
| concurrenceBy | Hugo L. Black ⓘ |
| constitutionalProvision |
U.S. Const. amend. IV
ⓘ
U.S. Const. amend. XIV ⓘ
linked to:
Fourteenth Amendment
|
| country |
United States
ⓘ
linked to:
United States of America
|
| court | Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ |
| decidedBy | Vincent C. Black Court ⓘ |
| decisionDate | 1949-06-27 ⓘ |
| dissentBy |
Frank Murphy
ⓘ
linked to:
Justice Frank Murphy
Robert H. Jackson ⓘ William O. Douglas ⓘ |
| fullName |
Julius A. Wolf v. People of the State of Colorado
ⓘ
linked to:
Wolf v. Colorado
|
| holding |
The Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures applies to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
ⓘ
The exclusionary rule is not required by the Fourteenth Amendment as a remedy for Fourth Amendment violations by state officials ⓘ |
| impact |
Contributed to the development of selective incorporation jurisprudence
ⓘ
Permitted states to admit evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment until 1961 ⓘ |
| joinedByInMajority |
Fred M. Vinson
ⓘ
linked to:
Chief Justice Fred M. Vinson
Harold H. Burton ⓘ Sherman Minton ⓘ Tom C. Clark ⓘ |
| jurisdiction |
State of Colorado
ⓘ
linked to:
Colorado
|
| languageOfRecord | English ⓘ |
| legalIssue |
Fourth Amendment
ⓘ
exclusionary rule ⓘ incorporation doctrine ⓘ |
| majorityOpinionBy | Felix Frankfurter ⓘ |
| overruledBy | Mapp v. Ohio ⓘ |
| overruledByCitation | 367 U.S. 643 ⓘ |
| page | 25 ⓘ |
| party |
Julius A. Wolf
ⓘ
People of the State of Colorado ⓘ
linked to:
Colorado
|
| reargued | 1949-01-18 ⓘ |
| relatedCase |
Mapp v. Ohio
ⓘ
Rochin v. California ⓘ Weeks v. United States ⓘ |
| reporter |
U.S.
ⓘ
linked to:
US
|
| result | Judgment of the Colorado Supreme Court affirmed ⓘ |
| stateCourt | Colorado Supreme Court ⓘ |
| subjectMatter | admissibility of illegally obtained evidence in state courts ⓘ |
| subsequentHistory | Overruled on the exclusionary rule issue by Mapp v. Ohio in 1961 ⓘ |
| volume | 338 ⓘ |
| yearDecided | 1949 ⓘ |
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: Wolf v. Colorado Description of subject: Wolf v. Colorado was a 1949 U.S. Supreme Court decision that held the Fourth Amendment’s exclusionary rule did not apply to the states, a position later reversed by Mapp v. Ohio.
Referenced by (7)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.
linked to: Wolf v. Colorado
linked to: Wolf v. Colorado