United States v. White

Supreme Court of the United States · 1971 · Criminal Procedure

401 U.S. 745 (1971)

Updated July 27, 2026

Criminal ProcedureFourth AmendmentElectronic surveillanceInformantselectronic eavesdroppinginformantparticipant monitoringradio transmitter

Facts

Government informant Harvey Jackson engaged White in a series of conversations about narcotics transactions in 1965 and 1966. On some occasions an agent listened from a closet in Jackson's home with Jackson's consent, and on multiple occasions agents overheard the conversations by monitoring a radio transmitter concealed on Jackson's person, including conversations in Jackson's home, White's home, a restaurant, and Jackson's car. Jackson was unavailable at trial, so the prosecution offered the testimony of the agents who conducted the monitoring. The trial court admitted that testimony, and White was convicted.

Issue

Does the Fourth Amendment bar testimony by government agents who overheard conversations between a defendant and a government informant by means of a radio transmitter concealed on the informant's person? Also, could the court of appeals rely on Katz where the surveillance occurred before Katz was decided?

Rule

The Fourth Amendment does not prohibit the admission of testimony concerning conversations voluntarily had with an informant who either later reports them, records them, or simultaneously transmits them to other agents, because the defendant has no constitutionally justifiable expectation that his listener will not disclose the conversation. In addition, Katz applies only to surveillance occurring after Katz and does not govern pre-Katz monitoring.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Phoenix, Tara Molina agreed to help federal agents investigate Owen Price for trafficking stolen prescription drugs. During a meeting in Owen's garage, Tara wore a hidden transmitter that relayed their conversation live to agents parked outside. At trial, Tara cannot be found, and the prosecution offers the agents' testimony about what they heard.

Should the court exclude the agents' testimony under the Fourth Amendment because no warrant authorized the transmission?

Explanation. The majority held that a speaker has no justifiable Fourth Amendment expectation that the person to whom he voluntarily speaks will not disclose, record, or simultaneously transmit the conversation to police. Simultaneous transmission by a participant is treated the same as the participant's later report. The informant's later unavailability at trial does not itself make the earlier monitoring a Fourth Amendment violation.