The ping pong drama being played out on the national media stage, and before Congress, concerning charges and counter charges of alleged Russian election hacking, complicity by the Republican administration, and domestic surveillance abuse of the intelligence apparatus by the former Democrat administration raises a cornucopia of legal issues.1 One interesting yet rarely litigated legal issue is whether individuals whose communications are intercepted, but are non-targets and never prosecuted, are entitled to notification and copies of the documents upon which the order for electronic surveillance was based. This article will address this issue.
Title III
Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968,2 18 U.S.C. 2510, et seq., sets the federal standard and imposes on the states the minimum constitutional standards for electronic surveillance. On the other hand, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, 50 U.S.C. §§1861 et seq., governs electronic surveillance to collect foreign intelligence, that is, information relating to the capabilities, intentions, or activities of foreign governments or elements thereof, foreign organizations, or foreign persons or international terrorist activities.3
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
