The (lower court -- District Court) case sited here stands for the proposition that the warrantless sureveillance by NSA against Jabara violated Jabara's fourth amendment rights. The Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that conclusion, on the grounds that Jabara failed to assert that the NSA activity violated his fourth amendment rights; and that since Jabara conceded the information was lawfully obtained, it was not a violation of the fourth amendment to pass the information to the FBI.
The appellate case (Jabara v. Webster, 691 F.2d 272 (1982)) has an Alice in Wonderland quality ;-)
Jabara, however, does not even contend on this appeal that the interception by the NSA violated his fourth amendment rights; we may therefore take as a given that the information was legally in the hands of the NSA. What Jabara does contend, and the district court agreed, is that his rights were violated when the NSA turned over the information, without a warrant, to the FBI. Defendants, on the other hand, contend that, since the NSA had lawfully intercepted and had made a record of the content of Jabara's communications, the fourth amendment was not implicated when the FBI requested and obtained the summaries from the NSA. This is so, defendants contend, because there simply was no "search" or "seizure" when this information was turned over to another agency of the government.
Sheesh. Looks like I got it backwards but as I understand it now the case finally said nothing about 4th amendment rights as the appeals court said he failed to assert them. Cosequently this case says nothing about the current debate. Is that right?