United States v. Giordano
E331163
United States v. Giordano is a U.S. Supreme Court case that clarified the strict procedural requirements for federal wiretap authorizations and limited who may approve such surveillance orders.
All labels observed (1)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| United States v. Giordano canonical | 1 |
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T3148310 — 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: United States v. Giordano Context triple: [Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, hasBeenInterpretedIn, United States v. Giordano]
-
A.
United States v. Eichman
United States v. Eichman is a 1990 U.S. Supreme Court case that struck down a federal law banning flag desecration as unconstitutional under the First Amendment’s protection of free speech.
-
B.
United States v. Gratiot
United States v. Gratiot is an 1840 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld broad federal authority over public lands under the Constitution’s Property Clause.
-
C.
United States v. Anthony Russo
United States v. Anthony Russo was a federal criminal case arising from the Pentagon Papers scandal, in which Anthony Russo was prosecuted alongside Daniel Ellsberg for their role in the unauthorized copying and disclosure of classified government documents about the Vietnam War.
-
D.
United States v. Guest
United States v. Guest is a 1966 U.S. Supreme Court case that held the federal government can prosecute private conspiracies to interfere with constitutional rights, particularly the right to travel, under certain circumstances.
-
E.
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.
- 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: United States v. Giordano Target entity description: United States v. Giordano is a U.S. Supreme Court case that clarified the strict procedural requirements for federal wiretap authorizations and limited who may approve such surveillance orders.
-
A.
United States v. Eichman
United States v. Eichman is a 1990 U.S. Supreme Court case that struck down a federal law banning flag desecration as unconstitutional under the First Amendment’s protection of free speech.
-
B.
United States v. Gratiot
United States v. Gratiot is an 1840 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld broad federal authority over public lands under the Constitution’s Property Clause.
-
C.
United States v. Anthony Russo
United States v. Anthony Russo was a federal criminal case arising from the Pentagon Papers scandal, in which Anthony Russo was prosecuted alongside Daniel Ellsberg for their role in the unauthorized copying and disclosure of classified government documents about the Vietnam War.
-
D.
United States v. Guest
United States v. Guest is a 1966 U.S. Supreme Court case that held the federal government can prosecute private conspiracies to interfere with constitutional rights, particularly the right to travel, under certain circumstances.
-
E.
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.
- F. None of above. chosen
Statements (44)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
Fourth Amendment case
ⓘ
U.S. Supreme Court case ⓘ criminal procedure case ⓘ |
| appliedIn | later federal wiretap suppression cases ⓘ |
| clarified |
procedural requirements for federal wiretap orders
ⓘ
that procedural safeguards in Title III are central, not technical, requirements ⓘ |
| concernsRights | privacy interests in communications ⓘ |
| concernsTopic |
criminal investigations
ⓘ
electronic surveillance ⓘ federal wiretap authorization ⓘ statutory interpretation ⓘ suppression of evidence ⓘ |
| countryOfJurisdiction |
United States of America
ⓘ
surface form:
United States
|
| emphasized | strict compliance with Title III authorization procedures ⓘ |
| hasCitation | 416 U.S. 505 ⓘ |
| hasCourt | Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ |
| hasDissentingJustices |
Byron R. White
ⓘ
surface form:
Justice Byron R. White
William H. Rehnquist ⓘ
surface form:
Justice William H. Rehnquist
William O. Douglas ⓘ
surface form:
Justice William O. Douglas
|
| hasParallelCitation |
40 L. Ed. 2d 341
ⓘ
94 S. Ct. 1820 ⓘ |
| hasPetitioner |
United States of America
ⓘ
surface form:
United States
|
| hasRespondent | Frank Giordano ⓘ |
| hasVote | 6–3 decision ⓘ |
| hasYear | 1974 ⓘ |
| held |
evidence obtained under an improperly authorized wiretap must be suppressed
ⓘ
only the Attorney General or a specially designated Assistant Attorney General may authorize applications for federal wiretap orders under 18 U.S.C. § 2516(1) ⓘ wiretap applications authorized by officials not specified in 18 U.S.C. § 2516(1) are invalid ⓘ |
| interpreted | the term "specially designated" in 18 U.S.C. § 2516(1) ⓘ |
| involvedIssue | validity of Attorney General delegation of wiretap approval authority ⓘ |
| isCitedFor |
mandatory suppression for core statutory violations in wiretap procedures
ⓘ
strict construction of federal wiretap statutes ⓘ |
| isRelatedCase | United States v. Chavez ⓘ |
| legalArea |
United States constitutional law
ⓘ
United States federal criminal law ⓘ electronic surveillance law ⓘ |
| limited | who may approve federal wiretap applications ⓘ |
| majorityOpinionBy |
Potter Stewart
ⓘ
surface form:
Justice Potter Stewart
|
| originatedFrom | United States District Court for the District of Maryland ⓘ |
| resultedIn | affirmance of suppression of wiretap evidence ⓘ |
| reviewedStatute |
18 U.S.C. § 2516(1)
ⓘ
Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 ⓘ |
| wasArguedOn | January 7, 1974 ⓘ |
| wasDecidedOn | June 17, 1974 ⓘ |
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: United States v. Giordano Description of subject: United States v. Giordano is a U.S. Supreme Court case that clarified the strict procedural requirements for federal wiretap authorizations and limited who may approve such surveillance orders.
Referenced by (1)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.
Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968
→
hasBeenInterpretedIn
→
United States v. Giordano
ⓘ