Katz v. United States
E127318
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.
All labels observed (2)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| Katz v. United States canonical | 3 |
| Charles Katz v. United States | 1 |
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T1076326 — 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: Katz v. United States Context triple: [Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, landmarkCase, Katz 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.
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.
-
C.
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.
-
D.
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.
-
E.
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.
- 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: Katz v. United States Target entity description: 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.
-
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.
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.
-
C.
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.
-
D.
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.
-
E.
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.
- F. None of above. chosen
Statements (49)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
Fourth Amendment case
ⓘ
United States Supreme Court case ⓘ landmark decision ⓘ |
| appliedTo | public telephone booth ⓘ |
| arguedOn | 1967-10-17 ⓘ |
| citation | 389 U.S. 347 ⓘ |
| concurrenceBy |
Byron R. White
ⓘ
surface form:
Byron White
John M. Harlan II ⓘ
surface form:
John Marshall Harlan II
|
| constitutionalProvisionInterpreted |
Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution
ⓘ
surface form:
Fourth Amendment
|
| country |
United States of America
ⓘ
surface form:
United States
|
| court | Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ |
| decidedOn | 1967-12-18 ⓘ |
| dissentBy |
Hugo L. Black
ⓘ
surface form:
Hugo Black
|
| docketNumber | 35 ⓘ |
| establishedDoctrine | reasonable expectation of privacy ⓘ |
| factsSummary | FBI agents attached an electronic listening device to the outside of a public phone booth used by Charles Katz to transmit wagering information. ⓘ |
| fullCaseName |
Katz v. United States
self-linksurface differs
ⓘ
surface form:
Charles Katz v. United States
|
| holding |
The Fourth Amendment protects people, not places.
ⓘ
The government’s electronic eavesdropping on Katz’s phone booth conversation constituted a search under the Fourth Amendment. ⓘ Warrantless electronic surveillance of Katz’s conversation violated the Fourth Amendment. ⓘ |
| impact |
expanded scope of Fourth Amendment protections beyond physical trespass
ⓘ
formed basis for modern electronic surveillance jurisprudence ⓘ |
| joinedByInMajority |
Abe Fortas
ⓘ
Byron R. White ⓘ
surface form:
Byron White
Earl Warren ⓘ Thurgood Marshall ⓘ William J. Brennan Jr. ⓘ William O. Douglas ⓘ |
| jurisdiction | federal criminal law ⓘ |
| keyTestArticulatedBy |
John M. Harlan II
ⓘ
surface form:
John Marshall Harlan II
|
| keyTestName | two-prong reasonable expectation of privacy test ⓘ |
| legalIssue | Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution ⓘ |
| majorityOpinionBy | Potter Stewart ⓘ |
| overruledPrecedentInPart |
Goldman v. United States
ⓘ
Olmstead v. United States ⓘ |
| page | 347 ⓘ |
| petitioner | Charles Katz ⓘ |
| relatedConcept |
privacy rights
ⓘ
search and seizure ⓘ |
| reporter | United States Reports ⓘ |
| requiredProcedure | judicial warrant ⓘ |
| respondent |
United States of America
ⓘ
surface form:
United States
|
| searchType |
electronic surveillance
ⓘ
wiretap ⓘ |
| subjectMatter | gambling and wagering communications ⓘ |
| testProng |
objective expectation of privacy that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable
ⓘ
subjective expectation of privacy ⓘ |
| volume | 389 ⓘ |
| yearDecided | 1967 ⓘ |
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: Katz v. United States Description of subject: 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.
Referenced by (4)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.
this entity surface form:
Charles Katz v. United States