# United States v. White

> Supreme Court of the United States · May 17, 1971 · 401 U.S. 745

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9883112

## Case

- **Full name:** United States v. White
- **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States
- **Decided:** May 17, 1971
- **Citations:** 401 U.S. 745; 91 S. Ct. 1122; 28 L. Ed. 2d 453; 1971 U.S. LEXIS 132
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Marshall
- **Judges:** White, Court'S, Burger, Stewart, Blackmun, Black, Brennan, Douglas, Harlan, Marshall
- **Cited by:** 935 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9883112

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- explaining that courts must assess the “de­ sirability” of privacy expectations and ask whether courts “should” recognize them by “balanc[ing]” the “impact on the individual’s sense of security . . . against the utility of the conduct as a technique of law enforcement”
- holding that, just as an informant “may write down for official use his conversations with a defendant and testify concerning them, . . . no different result is required if the agent . . . records them with electronic equipment which he is carrying on his person”
- finding that, “however strongly a defendant may trust an apparent colleague, his expectations in this respect are not protected by the Fourth Amendment when it turns out that the colleague is a government agent regularly communicating with the authorities”
- stating that the court must transcend the "search for subjective expectations” inasmuch as subjective expectations are inextricably linked to a determination of whether society considers the expectation reasonable
- holding no warrant to “search and seize” is required when the Government sends to defendant’s home a secret agent who conceals his identity and makes a purchase of narcotics from the accused, or when the same agent, unbeknown to the defendant, carries electronic equipment to r…

## Opinion text

Mr. Justice Marshall,
dissenting.
I am convinced that the correct view of the Fourth Amendment in the area of electronic surveillance is one that brings the safeguards of the warrant requirement to bear on the investigatory activity involved in this case. In this regard I agree with the dissents of Mr. Justice *796 Douglas and Me. Justice Harlan. In short, I believe that On Lee v. United States, 343 U. S. 747 (1952), cannot be considered viable in light of the constitutional principles articulated in Katz v. United States, 389 U. S. 347 (1967), and other cases. And for reasons expressed by Mr. Justice Fortas in dissent in Desist v. United States, 394 U. S. 244, 269 (1969), I do not think we should feel constrained to employ a discarded theory of the Fourth Amendment in evaluating the governmental intrusions challenged here.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9883112. Public record. Not legal advice.