In USVWhite,involving Incriminating Statements Heard by Law Enforcement Because of Warrantless

Multiple Choice

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,but electronic 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.