United States v. White Case Brief: Fourth Amendment and the Use of Informants for Electronic Surveillance

Case Brief: United States v. White

Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Citation: 401 U.S. 745 (1971)
Argued: February 22, 1971
Decided: June 7, 1971

---

Facts:

In United States v. White, the defendant, White, was the subject of a federal investigation into illegal activities. Federal agents, with the consent of a confidential informant, began recording conversations between the informant and White. The informant had been acting as a cooperating individual, and the recordings revealed evidence of criminal activity by White. White was then arrested and charged with a variety of offenses, including conspiracy to violate federal laws.

White filed a motion to suppress the evidence obtained through these recorded conversations, arguing that his Fourth Amendment rights had been violated. Specifically, White claimed that the government’s use of a confidential informant to record private conversations violated his reasonable expectation of privacy, as he had not consented to the recordings.

Issues:

1. Whether the government’s use of a confidential informant to record conversations violated the Fourth Amendment.
2. Whether the use of a "bugged" conversation without a warrant constituted an illegal search or seizure.

Holding:

The Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, held that the use of the informant to record conversations did not violate the Fourth Amendment. The Court found that White had no reasonable expectation of privacy in his conversations because he was speaking to a third-party informant who was cooperating with law enforcement. The Court also ruled that the use of electronic surveillance by the informant did not require a warrant in this case.

Legal Reasoning:

• Expectation of Privacy in Conversations: The majority, in an opinion written by Justice White, explained that the Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, but it does not provide protection against recording of conversations by individuals to whom one voluntarily speaks. In this case, White had spoken to an informant who was acting on behalf of law enforcement, and therefore, White had no reasonable expectation of privacy in his conversations.

• Third-Party Doctrine and Voluntary Disclosure: The Court applied principles from Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967), where the Court held that the Fourth Amendment protects individuals’ privacy interests in their communications, but not when they voluntarily disclose those communications to third parties. Here, White’s conversations were voluntarily made to an informant who was working for the government, and therefore, White had no reasonable expectation that his conversations would remain private.

• Use of Informants and Electronic Surveillance: The Court also noted that the use of informants and the recording of conversations did not require a warrant under the circumstances. As long as the government was not overhearing conversations it had not been invited to listen to, there was no violation of the Fourth Amendment. The Court relied on the principle that when a person speaks to a third party (such as a confidential informant), they cannot expect privacy in those communications.

Dissenting Opinion:

• Justice Douglas, in dissent, argued that the government’s use of an informant to record conversations without a warrant violated the Fourth Amendment's protections. He emphasized that electronic surveillance, especially without the knowledge of the individual, should require a warrant or probable cause to ensure privacy rights were not infringed.
• Justice Brennan, joined by Justice Marshall, also dissented, expressing concern that this ruling would allow law enforcement to bypass protections for personal privacy by using informants to record private conversations without warrants.

Conclusion:

The Court held that White’s Fourth Amendment rights were not violated when the government used a confidential informant to record his conversations without a warrant. White had no reasonable expectation of privacy in his conversations because they were made to a third party who was cooperating with law enforcement. The decision upheld the use of informants and electronic surveillance in cases where a person voluntarily speaks to a third party.

---

List of Cases Cited:

1. Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967) - Established the reasonable expectation of privacy test for Fourth Amendment protections.
2. Silverman v. United States, 365 U.S. 505 (1961) - Clarified the limitations of wiretapping and electronic surveillance in the context of Fourth Amendment protections.
3. Lopez v. United States, 373 U.S. 427 (1963) - Allowed the use of electronic surveillance if the government had probable cause and a warrant.

---

Similar Cases:

1. Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967) - Established the reasonable expectation of privacy test for Fourth Amendment protections in conversations and wiretaps.
2. Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979) - Held that there was no reasonable expectation of privacy in the numbers dialed from a telephone because they were exposed to the phone company.
3. United States v. White, 401 U.S. 745 (1971) - Addressed the Fourth Amendment’s protection of conversations when an informant is used by law enforcement to record conversations.