16

A person, let's say Jane, owns a home and receives hundreds of toll invoices (see link) and automated traffic tickets. It is Jane's address but the names are strangers all over the nation (USA). Obviously the scammers are setting Jane's street address in the vehicle registration.

Jane calls local police to report this. The police figure out pretty quickly that this pile of letters is addressed to someone who does not live in the home.

Mail is Federal jurisdiction. Can Jane consent to letting the local police open up the letters to read the contents?

The addressee is actually Chuck, and through contents of the letter, they eventually catch and charge Chuck. If the contents of the letter are "the tree" that leads to "fruit" in the usual sense of "fruit of the poisoned tree"... can Chuck claim the search was improper and get it thrown out?

Jane and the police officer are in Florida and the mail is sent from the Florida DOT. Does that change the equation any?

The officer is a Hazzard County Sheriff deputy and the mail is addressed from the Hazzard County Sheriff's Dept. Does that change the equation any?

Improve this question
2
  • 4
    Question related to the last paragraph: Does Jane have to hand off the misdirected mail to USPS or can she give it directly back to the sender (as identified by the return address information printed on the mailpiece by the sender)?
    – Ben Voigt
    Commented Aug 1 at 14:42
  • I'm wondering if people could answer this as an adjacent to the question: if Chuck engaged in fraud (I.E. gave a false name, or, per this case, gave a false address), could we truly argue it is actually Chuck's correspondence, given he's gone to great lengths to "disown" ownership of said letters (I.E. via the process of fraud to distance himself)?
    – SE Does Not Like Dissent
    Commented Aug 2 at 16:36

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
29

Can Jane consent to letting the local police open up the letters to read the contents?

Jane’s consent is not relevant. It’s not her mail.

Assuming the letters were sent first class mail, a warrant is required. Normally the US Postal Inspection Service would get a warrant and open the mail, though my understanding is that they do not have exclusive jurisdiction to do so. For other forms of mailing, the USPIS can inspect them without a warrant. Of course, they could also just ask the sender what was in the letters.

If a law enforcement agent opened first class mail without a proper warrant, evidence obtained from it (directly or indirectly) would be inadmissible. But this is an area where they would be tempted to engage in parallel construction, contacting the DOT afterwards and then pretending that the DOT had been the sole source from the beginning.

Improve this answer
10
  • 1
    This answer suggests police can open mail that is sent anything other than first-class. Is that true? What makes first-class mail different / what makes all other mail legally openable without a warrant?
    – JJrodny
    Commented Aug 1 at 18:02
  • 1
    @JJrodny Sealed first class mail is presumed to be private correspondence, so nobody other than the recipient is allowed to inspect it, even the postal organization which has possession of it. Whereas mass mail is not presumed to be private correspondence (because that’s not what the service is for).
    – Sneftel
    Commented Aug 1 at 18:38
  • 3
    @JJrodny it's because of how mail classing is done. Most mail is First Class including Express and Priority Mail. Parcels have a special rate but they are objects not correspondence. "book rate" aka "media mail" is only for published books/DVDs/records. Standard mail aka "bulk rate mail" is required to be a batch of at least 200 identical pieces, so nothing personal there. I.e. if you get a standard piece saying "John, $6000 credit limit for you" then “Bob, $6000…" could be in that mailing. “Jane, $7000” could not. OP's pieces are all First Class.
    – Harper - Reinstate Monica
    Commented Aug 2 at 1:33
  • @Harper-ReinstateMonica, assuming it's closed envelopes, how would anyone check the messages are identical up to the numbers and all?
    – ilkkachu
    Commented Aug 2 at 12:49
  • 1
    @ilkkachu, unless one were a postal inspector, one probably would not check the messages at all. Misrepresenting the nature of mail so as to get cheaper rates from the U.S. postal service is presumably an act of fraud against a federal agency, but nothing says that the postal service is obligated to take any particular measures to detect such fraud.
    – John Bollinger
    Commented Aug 2 at 21:41
10

Opening miss- or undelivered mail is a task that is usually reserved to Postal Inspection.

Local Police could turn over the letters to either the USPS inspection to have them opened following the proper procedures (which for personal correspondence includes acquiring a federal warrant) or directly subpoena the sender to have a copy of the letters sent to the police.

But, isn't that Ja...

NO! It is not Jane's correspondence, it is the correspondence of the person it is addressed to. The name is very relevant to determining who that person is. If it is addressed to "Chuck Jaeger", and you are not Chuck Jaeger, it is not your correspondence. If Chuck Jaeger does not live at the address, then it is miss- or undelivered mail, to be returned to the Postal Service for further processing and possibly to find the addressee.

Improve this answer
6
  • 2
    Only First Class Mail and quasi-First Class (Priority Mail, Priority Mail Express) can be sealed against inspection. (Also, matter has to be sealed: a open catalog, magazine, postcard can be inspected)
    – user71659
    Commented Aug 1 at 7:27
  • 1
    The Post Office needs a warrant, too.
    – Tiger Guy
    Commented Aug 1 at 13:59
  • 1
    @TigerGuy yes, but the police can't get the warrant in the first place.
    – Trish
    Commented Aug 1 at 14:30
  • 1
    @trish, my understanding is that postal inspectors need a federal warrant.
    – Tiger Guy
    Commented Aug 1 at 16:47
  • Since the mail is addressed to Jane’s home, although with the wrong name, could it be argued that it is addressed to Jane’s home and therefore intended to be read by Jane?
    – gnasher729
    Commented Aug 1 at 21:43

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .