Connection lost
Server error
United States v. White Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: The Supreme Court held that the Fourth Amendment does not protect a person’s conversations with a government informant who is secretly transmitting the conversation to police. The defendant assumes the risk that their confidant may be reporting to the government, with or without electronic aid.
Legal Significance: This case established the “assumption of risk” or “misplaced trust” doctrine for electronic surveillance with the consent of one party. It holds that a warrant is not required when an informant secretly records or transmits a conversation, distinguishing it from the non-consensual eavesdropping in Katz.
United States v. White Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Respondent James A. White was convicted of illegal narcotics transactions based on evidence obtained through a government informant, Harvey Jackson. On eight occasions, Jackson engaged in conversations with White while wearing a concealed radio transmitter. Government agents, without a warrant, monitored these transmissions in real-time using a radio receiver, overhearing incriminating statements made by White. The conversations occurred in various locations, including the informant’s home, White’s home, a restaurant, and the informant’s car. At trial, the prosecution was unable to produce the informant, Jackson. The trial court, over White’s Fourth Amendment objections, allowed the government agents who had conducted the electronic surveillance to testify about the contents of the overheard conversations. The Court of Appeals reversed the conviction, holding that the Supreme Court’s decision in Katz v. United States rendered such warrantless surveillance unconstitutional.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does the Fourth Amendment bar the admission of testimony from government agents who, without a warrant, overheard conversations between a defendant and a government informant by monitoring a radio transmitter concealed on the informant’s person?
No. In a plurality opinion, the Court held that the agents’ testimony Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in c
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Does the Fourth Amendment bar the admission of testimony from government agents who, without a warrant, overheard conversations between a defendant and a government informant by monitoring a radio transmitter concealed on the informant’s person?
Conclusion
*United States v. White* solidified the "third-party doctrine" for electronic surveillance, establishing Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit es
Legal Rule
The Fourth Amendment does not protect a person's misplaced belief that a Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui offic
Legal Analysis
The plurality opinion, authored by Justice White, applied the "assumption of risk" Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- The Fourth Amendment does not protect conversations with a government informant