Olmstead v. United States dissent
E193551
The Olmstead v. United States dissent is Justice Louis D. Brandeis’s influential Supreme Court opinion arguing that wiretapping without a warrant violates constitutional privacy rights and foreshadowing modern interpretations of the Fourth Amendment.
All labels observed (1)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| Olmstead v. United States dissent canonical | 1 |
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T1708740 — 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: Olmstead v. United States dissent Context triple: [Louis D. Brandeis, notableWork, Olmstead v. United States dissent]
-
A.
Dickerson v. United States
Dickerson v. United States is a 2000 U.S. Supreme Court case that reaffirmed the constitutional basis of Miranda warnings and held that Congress could not overrule Miranda v. Arizona by statute.
-
B.
Alden v. Maine
Alden v. Maine is a 1999 U.S. Supreme Court decision that expanded state sovereign immunity by holding that states are generally immune from private suits for damages in their own courts under federal law.
-
C.
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.
-
D.
Eisenstadt v. Baird
Eisenstadt v. Baird is a landmark 1972 U.S. Supreme Court decision that extended the right to possess and use contraceptives to unmarried individuals, significantly advancing privacy and equal protection jurisprudence.
-
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: Olmstead v. United States dissent Target entity description: The Olmstead v. United States dissent is Justice Louis D. Brandeis’s influential Supreme Court opinion arguing that wiretapping without a warrant violates constitutional privacy rights and foreshadowing modern interpretations of the Fourth Amendment.
-
A.
Dickerson v. United States
Dickerson v. United States is a 2000 U.S. Supreme Court case that reaffirmed the constitutional basis of Miranda warnings and held that Congress could not overrule Miranda v. Arizona by statute.
-
B.
Alden v. Maine
Alden v. Maine is a 1999 U.S. Supreme Court decision that expanded state sovereign immunity by holding that states are generally immune from private suits for damages in their own courts under federal law.
-
C.
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.
-
D.
Eisenstadt v. Baird
Eisenstadt v. Baird is a landmark 1972 U.S. Supreme Court decision that extended the right to possess and use contraceptives to unmarried individuals, significantly advancing privacy and equal protection jurisprudence.
-
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 (47)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
Supreme Court dissenting opinion
ⓘ
judicial opinion ⓘ legal opinion ⓘ |
| addressesTechnology | telephone wiretapping ⓘ |
| authoredBy |
Justice Louis D. Brandeis
ⓘ
Justice Louis D. Brandeis ⓘ
surface form:
Louis D. Brandeis
|
| caseCitation | 277 U.S. 438 (1928) ⓘ |
| characterizedAs |
foundational text in U.S. privacy jurisprudence
ⓘ
landmark dissent in American constitutional law ⓘ |
| constitutionalBasis |
Fifth Amendment protection against compelled self-incrimination
ⓘ
Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures ⓘ |
| countryOfOrigin |
United States of America
ⓘ
surface form:
United States
|
| court | Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ |
| criticizes |
government use of new technology to evade constitutional limits
ⓘ
majority opinion in Olmstead v. United States ⓘ |
| date | 1928 ⓘ |
| doctrine | broad, evolving interpretation of the Constitution ⓘ |
| famousFor |
articulating a constitutional right to privacy
ⓘ
coining the phrase "the right to be let alone" as the most comprehensive of rights ⓘ foreshadowing modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence ⓘ |
| field |
constitutional law
ⓘ
criminal procedure ⓘ privacy law ⓘ |
| hasAuthorRole | Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ |
| historicalContext | early 20th-century development of telephone technology ⓘ |
| influenced |
Katz v. United States
ⓘ
doctrine of reasonable expectation of privacy ⓘ modern privacy law in the United States ⓘ |
| interprets | Fourth Amendment protection as covering people, not just places ⓘ |
| jurisdiction |
United States of America
ⓘ
surface form:
United States
|
| language | English ⓘ |
| legalIssue |
constitutional right to privacy
ⓘ
search and seizure ⓘ wiretapping without a warrant ⓘ |
| partOf | Olmstead v. United States ⓘ |
| position |
argues that the Constitution protects privacy against government intrusion
ⓘ
argues that warrantless wiretapping violates the Fourth Amendment ⓘ rejects narrow property-based interpretation of the Fourth Amendment ⓘ supports broad interpretation of constitutional protections in light of new technologies ⓘ |
| relatedToAmendment |
Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution
ⓘ
Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution ⓘ |
| rightsConcept | "right to be let alone" as central to individual liberty ⓘ |
| supportsPrinciple |
Constitution must adapt to changing conditions and technologies
ⓘ
government must be subject to the law when gathering evidence ⓘ |
| viewOnEvidence | evidence obtained by unconstitutional means should not be used by the government ⓘ |
| warnsAbout |
dangers of unchecked government surveillance
ⓘ
erosion of civil liberties through technological advances ⓘ |
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: Olmstead v. United States dissent Description of subject: The Olmstead v. United States dissent is Justice Louis D. Brandeis’s influential Supreme Court opinion arguing that wiretapping without a warrant violates constitutional privacy rights and foreshadowing modern interpretations of the Fourth Amendment.
Referenced by (1)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.
subject surface form:
Louis D. Brandeis