In US V White, Involving Incriminating Statements Heard by Law Enforcement Because

Multiple Choice

In U.S. v. White, involving incriminating statements heard by law enforcement because of warrantless electronic eavesdropping of defendant White's co-conspirator, the Supreme Court held that:
I. White had no reasonable expectation of privacy in his conversation with the co-conspirator.
II. live participant monitoring was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, but
Electronic eavesdropping was not.
III. three-party bugging jeopardizes our sense of security and therefore was unreasonable.
IV. the use of government informants in the respondent's home violated the Fourth Amendment.

A) I, II
B) I
C) I, II, III, IV
D) III, IV