Triple

Given a phrase, classify it is english named entity (e.g., persons, organizations, works of art) in Latin script, or not (e.g., literals, dates, URLs, verbose phrases). For disambiguation, the statement where the phrase occurs as object is also given. Please return a JSON object with `phrase` (string, the phrase being analyzed) and `is_ne` (boolean, indicating whether the phrase is a Named Entity).

Phrase: Mapp v. Ohio (to the extent Weeks limited the exclusionary rule to federal cases) | Statement: [Weeks v. United States, overruledInPartBy, Mapp v. Ohio (to the extent Weeks limited the exclusionary rule to federal cases)]

Target entity: Mapp v. Ohio (to the extent Weeks limited the exclusionary rule to federal cases)
Context triple: [Weeks v. United States, overruledInPartBy, Mapp v. Ohio (to the extent Weeks limited the exclusionary rule to federal cases)]

• A. Mapp v. Ohio chosen
  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.
• B. 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.
• C. New York v. Quarles
  New York v. Quarles is a 1984 U.S. Supreme Court decision that created the "public safety" exception to the Miranda warning requirement, allowing certain unwarned statements to be admitted when needed to protect public safety.
• D. United States v. Leon
  United States v. Leon is a 1984 U.S. Supreme Court decision that established the "good faith" exception to the exclusionary rule in Fourth Amendment search and seizure cases.
• E. Miranda v. Arizona
  Miranda v. Arizona is a landmark 1966 U.S. Supreme Court case that established the requirement for police to inform criminal suspects of their rights to remain silent and to have an attorney present during custodial interrogations.
• F. None of above.
• G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.

Target predicate: overruledInPartBy
Context triple: [Weeks v. United States, overruledInPartBy, Mapp v. Ohio (to the extent Weeks limited the exclusionary rule to federal cases)]

• A. overturnedInPartBy chosen
  Indicates that a prior decision, ruling, or outcome has been partially reversed or modified by a later authority or action.
• B. wasOverturnedByCourt
  Indicates that a prior decision, ruling, or judgment was reversed or nullified by a court.
• C. overturnedDecisionOf
  Indicates that one decision reversed, nullified, or set aside a previous decision.
• D. upheldBy
  Indicates that one entity is supported, maintained, or validated by another, often through approval, enforcement, or confirmation of its validity.
• E. overturnedLaw
  Indicates that a previously established law has been invalidated or reversed, typically by a higher legal authority or court decision.
• F. None of above.