In Katz v. the United States, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the constitutional protection against unreasonable searches extends to private conversations regardless of where they were held or how the intrusion was implemented. The Court subsequently undermined its decision in Katz, in part because of its failure to define privacy in the consent surveillance doctrine established in United States v. White. In this case, the Court held that only justifiable expectations of privacy warranted protection under the fourth amendment in cases involving monitoring by one of the participants in a conversation. Some States have reached the same result as in White, while some States have held such surveillance illegal. Few States have granted rights beyond those defined by the Supreme Court or shown an awareness of the institutional conflict between State and Federal law. Although the results are the same in State decisions in which the courts accept Federal law uncritically and in those in which State courts analyze and then adopt Federal reasoning, or interpret State statutes before following Federal law, the courts' institutional concerns clearly differ. These varied approaches will affect future State law development. A total of 303 case notes are included.