Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

United States Vs. White

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Apr 05, 1971

Citation network · 7-day free trial

Brief every cited case in minutes

Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

68 entries 68 unlinked
Show
  1. U.S. 745 (1971) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. White
    Search
  2. U.S. 745 (1971) United States v. White
    Search
  3. court overruled objections to the testimony of the agents who conducted the electronic surveillance. Reading Katz v. United
    Search
  4. States, 389 U. S. 347 (1967), as overruling On Lee v. United
    Search
  5. the contents of conversations with an accused does not violate the Fourth Amendment, and this Court's decision in Katz v. United
    Search
  6. witness does not create any Fourth Amendment issue. Pp. 401 U. S. 753 -754. 3. Since the decision in Katz v. United
    Search
  7. States, supra, was not retroactive, Desist v. United
    Search
  8. U. S. 754 . MR. JUSTICE BLACK concurred in the judgment for the reasons set forth in his dissent in Katz v. United
    Search
  9. U. S. 746 MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN, to the extent that he joined in the Court's judgment, concluded that Desist v. United
    Search
  10. surveillance. The jury returned a guilty verdict, and defendant appealed. The Court of Appeals read Katz v. United
    Search
  11. Page 401 U. S. 748 I Until Katz v. United
    Search
  12. Olmstead v. United
    Search
  13. Goldman v. United
    Search
  14. heard, as well as tangible objects seized, was considered the inadmissible fruit of an unlawful invasion. Silverman v. United
    Search
  15. Wong Sun v. United
    Search
  16. Berger v. New
    Search
  17. Alderman v. United
    Search
  18. States, 394 U. S. 165 , 394 U. S. 177 -178 (1969). Katz v. United
    Search
  19. that a person with whom he is conversing will not then or later reveal the conversation to the police. Hoffa v. United
    Search
  20. Hoffa v. United
    Search
  21. to defendant's home a secret agent who conceals his identity and makes a purchase of narcotics from the accused, Lewis v. United
    Search
  22. electronic equipment to record the defendant's words and the evidence so gathered is later offered in evidence. Lopez v. United
    Search
  23. be excluded from evidence. To reach this result, it was necessary for the Court of Appeals to hold that On Lee v. United
    Search
  24. his encounters with the defendant and without otherwise violating the latter's Fourth Amendment rights. Hoffa v. United
    Search
  25. defendant, either (1) simultaneously records them with electronic equipment which he is carrying on his person, Lopez v. United
    Search
  26. either to recording equipment located elsewhere or to other agents monitoring the transmitting frequency. On Lee v. United
    Search
  27. has recorded or transmitted the conversations which are later offered in evidence to prove the State's case. See Lopez v. United
    Search
  28. Lopez v. United
    Search
  29. the defendant's Fourth Amendment rights. II The Court of Appeals was in error for another reason. In Desist v. United
    Search
  30. States, 394 U. S. 244 (1969), we held that our decision in Katz v. United
    Search
  31. took place in late 1965 and early 1966, long prior to Katz. We adhere to the rationale of Desist, see Williams v. United
    Search
  32. is so ordered. Page 401 U. S. 755 MR. JUSTICE BLACK, while adhering to his views expressed in Linkletter v. Walker
    Search
  33. U. S. 640 (1965), concurs in the judgment of the Court for the reasons set forth in his dissent in Katz v. United
    Search
  34. Other courts of appeals have considered On Lee viable despite Katz. Dancy v. United
    Search
  35. Long v. United
    Search
  36. Koran v. United
    Search
  37. States, 408 F.2d 1321 (CA5 1969). See also United States v. Kaufer
    Search
  38. United States v. Jackson
    Search
  39. Doty v. United
    Search
  40. id. at 893 (rehearing 1969). MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN, concurring in the result. I agree that Desist v. United
    Search
  41. of this case on that ground. However, my Brothers DOUGLAS, HARLAN, and WHITE also debate the question whether On Lee v. United
    Search
  42. go further. It is my view that the reasoning of both my Brothers DOUGLAS and HARLAN compels the conclusion that Lopez v. United
    Search
  43. Katz v. United
    Search
  44. See Appendix I to this dissent. Yet as Judge Ferguson said in United States v. Smith
    Search
  45. in the Justice Department, The Progressive, April 1971, p. 27. II We held in Berger v. New
    Search
  46. breadth, generality, and long life of the general warrant against which the Fourth Amendment was aimed. In Katz v. United
    Search
  47. device are now covered by the Fourth Amendment. There were prior decisions representing an opposed view. In On Lee v. United
    Search
  48. there was no trespass, was the core of the On Lee decision. Id. at 343 U. S. 751 -754. Lopez v. United
    Search
  49. U.S. at 389 U. S. 357 . Camara v. Municipal
    Search
  50. U.S. Supreme Court United States v. White
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial