In U.S. v. White, involving incriminating statements heard by law enforcement because of warrantless electronic eavesdropping of defendant White's coconspirator, the Supreme Court held that:
a. live participant monitoring was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, butelectronic eavesdropping was not.
b. White had no reasonable expectation of privacy in his conversation with the co-conspirator.
c. three-party bugging jeopardizes our sense of security and therefore was unreasonable.
d. the use of government informants in the respondent's home violated the Fourth Amendment.
Question 2
According to the Supreme Court opinion in U.S. v. White (1971), involving a friend wired for sound to the police:
a. a defendant has a constitutionally protected expectation that a person he is conversing with will not revealthe conversation to the police.
b. a person contemplating illegal activities must realize and risk that his friend may be reporting to the police.
c. a suspect's friend may relate the substance of conversations between the two without violating the FourthAmendment, but the amendment is violated if the friend records those conversations for the police without awarrant.
d. anytime electronic devices are used to obtain evidence, a search warrant is required.
David P. Bradley (White Earth Oijbwe, and Mdewakaton Dakota), Indian Country Today.
White Blood Cells Involved in Immune Response
Oxidation and reduction reactions involving flavin coenzymes
White Bread vs. Brown Bread