Weeks v. United States
E92226
Weeks v. United States is a landmark 1914 U.S. Supreme Court case that established the federal exclusionary rule, barring evidence obtained through unconstitutional searches and seizures from being used in federal prosecutions.
All labels observed (2)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| Weeks v. United States canonical | 4 |
| Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383 (1914) | 2 |
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T756448 — 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: Weeks v. United States Context triple: [Mapp v. Ohio, relatedCase, Weeks 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.
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.
-
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.
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.
- 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: Weeks v. United States Target entity description: Weeks v. United States is a landmark 1914 U.S. Supreme Court case that established the federal exclusionary rule, barring evidence obtained through unconstitutional searches and seizures from being used in federal prosecutions.
-
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.
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.
-
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.
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.
- F. None of above. chosen
Statements (49)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
Fourth Amendment case
ⓘ
United States Supreme Court case ⓘ criminal procedure case ⓘ landmark case ⓘ |
| appliesTo | federal criminal prosecutions ⓘ |
| areaOfLaw |
constitutional law
ⓘ
criminal procedure ⓘ search and seizure ⓘ |
| charge | using the mails to transport lottery tickets ⓘ |
| citation | 232 U.S. 383 ⓘ |
| citationStyle |
Weeks v. United States
self-linksurface differs
ⓘ
surface form:
Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383 (1914)
|
| constitutionalProvisionInterpreted | Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution ⓘ |
| country |
United States of America
ⓘ
surface form:
United States
|
| court | Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ |
| decisionDate | 1914-02-24 ⓘ |
| doctrine | exclusionary rule (federal) ⓘ |
| factSummary | Federal officers twice entered Fremont Weeks’s home without a warrant and seized papers used to convict him of using the mails to transport lottery tickets. ⓘ |
| fullName | Weeks v. United States self-link ⓘ |
| holding |
Evidence obtained by federal officials through an unconstitutional search and seizure is inadmissible in federal criminal prosecutions.
ⓘ
The exclusionary rule applies to federal courts under the Fourth Amendment. ⓘ |
| influenced | Mapp v. Ohio ⓘ |
| issue | Whether evidence seized from a home without a warrant by federal officers can be used in a federal prosecution. ⓘ |
| jurisdiction | federal ⓘ |
| legalPrinciple |
federal exclusionary rule
ⓘ
suppression of illegally obtained evidence ⓘ |
| locationOfEvents |
Kansas City, Missouri, United States
ⓘ
surface form:
Kansas City, Missouri
|
| majorityOpinionBy | William R. Day ⓘ |
| opinionAuthor | Justice William R. Day ⓘ |
| overruledInPartBy |
Mapp v. Ohio
ⓘ
surface form:
Mapp v. Ohio (to the extent Weeks limited the exclusionary rule to federal cases)
|
| pageInUnitedStatesReports | 383 ⓘ |
| party |
Fremont Weeks
ⓘ
United States of America ⓘ
surface form:
United States
|
| petitioner | Fremont Weeks ⓘ |
| precedentFor | exclusion of illegally obtained evidence in federal courts ⓘ |
| proceduralPosture | review of a conviction in a federal district court ⓘ |
| relatedCase |
Mapp v. Ohio
ⓘ
Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States ⓘ Wolf v. Colorado ⓘ |
| remedyRecognized | suppression of unconstitutionally seized evidence ⓘ |
| respondent |
United States of America
ⓘ
surface form:
United States
|
| result | conviction reversed ⓘ |
| searchType | warrantless search of a home ⓘ |
| shortName | Weeks ⓘ |
| significance |
Established that federal courts must exclude evidence obtained through unconstitutional searches and seizures.
ⓘ
First case in which the U.S. Supreme Court adopted the exclusionary rule for federal prosecutions. ⓘ |
| subjectMatter | use of evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment ⓘ |
| volumeOfUnitedStatesReports | 232 ⓘ |
| vote | unanimous ⓘ |
| yearDecided | 1914 ⓘ |
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: Weeks v. United States Description of subject: Weeks v. United States is a landmark 1914 U.S. Supreme Court case that established the federal exclusionary rule, barring evidence obtained through unconstitutional searches and seizures from being used in federal prosecutions.
Referenced by (6)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.
this entity surface form:
Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383 (1914)
subject surface form:
Weeks v. United States
this entity surface form:
Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383 (1914)