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 | 1 |
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 NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| country |
United States of America
ⓘ
surface form:
United States
|
| 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 NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| languageOfDecision | English ⓘ |
| laterLimitedBy |
Katz v. United States
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
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 NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| overruledInPartBy | Katz v. United States NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| parties |
Goldman
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
United States NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| 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
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
Olmstead v. United States NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| 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| status | partially superseded precedent ⓘ |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 ⓘ |
Referenced by (1)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.