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