United States v. White:   
United States Supreme Court, 1971. 

Statement of the Case:

      The State is prosecuting a drug dealer, James White, on two separate indictments alleging various illegal narcotics transactions, but their main evidence was acquired when the drug dealer spoke candidly about his crimes with a government informant, Harvey Jackson.

Procedure:

      Trial court fined White and sentenced him to concurrent 25 year sentences.  Then the Appellate Court reversed for the ?.

Facts:

      Government agents wired their informant, Jackson.  He took place in, and in effect, transmitted to the police, 4 conversations that took place in Jackson’s home.  Each of the conversations was heard by an agent who was hiding in Jackson’s closet, and a 2^nd agent transmitted it from outside with a radio receiver.  Radio equipment was used to transmit 4 other conversations (from White’s home, a restaurant, and 2 in Jackson’s car).

Issue:

      Whether the 4^th Amendment bars from evidence the testimony of government agents regarding conversations between the drug dealer and a government informant when the informant consented to the transmitting and eavesdropping, but the drug dealer thought he was speaking in confidence.

Procedural Result:

      Judgment reversed for the State.

Holding:

      The 4^th Amendment does not bar from evidence the testimony of government agents regarding conversations between the drug dealer and a government informant when the informant consented to the transmitting and eavesdropping, even though the drug dealer thought he was speaking in confidence.

Reasoning:

• Rule: Hoffa v. US – However strongly a ? may trust an apparent colleague, his expectations are not protected by the 4^th Amendment when it turns out that the colleague is a government agent who communicated with authorities.
  • No warrant is necessary in these circumstances.
  • No warrant is needed either when Government sends to ?’s house a secret agent who conceals his identity and makes a purchase of narcotics from the ?.
  • This extends to recording or delivers the oral evidence with electronic equipment.
• Rule:
  • A police agent who conceals his police identity may write down his conversations for official use without a warrant without violating the 4^th Amendment.
  • Also, there is no violation of the 4^th Amendment if electronic equipment is used to record it, or the agent carries radio equipment which simultaneously transmits the conversations either to recording equipment located elsewhere, or to other agents monitoring it.
• Policy:  We should not erect constitutional barriers to relevant evidence that is accurate and reliable.

Dissent:

• On Lee stated that eavesdropping on a conversation, with the participation of one of the parties, does not require a search warrant.
• Policy:  Our republican system of Government is set up to defend honest people from the abuse of search and seizure by requiring a search warrant.
  • More than self restraint by law enforcement officers is needed to defend people, and warrants should be necessary.

Additional Points: 

• QUESTION:  How does this interrelate/mesh with the Florida Statute on interception of communications, 768, making it a crime to do so?