(a) Matter in addition to correspondence. Except as provided in paragraph (e), Customs officers and employees may open and examine sealed letter class mail subject to Customs examination which appears to contain matter in addition to, or other than, correspondence, provided they have reasonable cause to suspect the presence of merchandise or contraband.
(b) Only correspondence. No Customs officer or employee shall open sealed letter class mail which appears to contain only correspondence unless prior to the opening:
(1) A search warrant authorizing that action has been obtained from an appropriate judge of United States magistrate, or
(2) The sender or the addressee has given written authorization for the opening.
(c) Reading of correspondence. No Customs officer or employee shall read, or authorize or allow any other person to read, any correspondence contained in any letter class mail, whether or not sealed, unless prior to the reading:
(1) A search warrant authorizing that action has been obtained from an appropriate judge or United States magistrate, or
(2) The sender or the addressee has given written authorization for the reading.
(d) Other types of correspondence. The provisions of paragraph (c) shall also apply to correspondence between school children and correspondence of the blind which are authorized to be mailed at other than the letter rate of postage in international mail.
(e) Certain Virgin Islands mail. First class mail originating in the Customs territory of the United States and arriving in the U.S. Virgin Islands, which is to be delivered within the U.S. Virgin Islands, shall not be opened unless:
(1) A search warrant authorizing that action has been obtained from an appropriate judge or United States magistrate, or
(2) The sender or the addressee has been given written authorization for the opening.
[T.D. 78-102, 43 FR 14454, Apr. 6, 1978]
Notes of Decisions
United States v. Ramsey, 431 U.S. 606 (1977).
· cites it 4× “Applicable postal regulations flatly prohibit, under all circumstances, the reading of correspondence absent a search warrant, 19 CFR § 145.3 (1976): "No customs officer or employee shall read or authorize or allow any other person to read any correspondence contained in sealed…”
United States v. Seljan, 547 F.3d 993 (9th Cir. 2008).
· cites it 6× “, 19 C.F.R. § 145.3 (b)-(c) (prohibiting inspectors from opening or reading sealed international letter class mail without a valid search warrant or consent from the sender).”
United States v. Glasser, 750 F.2d 1197 (3rd Cir. 1984).
· cites it 3× “” 19 C.F.R. § 145.3 (a). The reading of correspondence or the opening of sealed letter class mail, which appears to contain only correspondence, without consent or a search warrant is prohibited.”
United States v. Raymond Richards, 638 F.2d 765 (5th Cir. 1981).
“C. § 1582 ; 19 C.F.R. § 145.2 (“All mail arriving from outside the Customs territory of the United States which is to be delivered within the Customs territory of the United States .”
United States v. Manuel Flores-Montano, 424 F.3d 1044 (9th Cir. 2005).
“The court noted, however, that 19 C.F.R. § 145.3 may provide some additional protections to letter mail entering the country, in contrast to the package that was at issue in that case.”
United States v. Seljan, 497 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 2007).
· cites it 2× “See 19 C.F.R. § 145.3 (b). Even when sealed mail appears to contain more than correspondence, *1049 customs inspectors must have reasonable cause to open a package sent through the U.”
United States v. Steven Baxter, 951 F.3d 128 (3rd Cir. 2020).
“See 19 C.F.R. § 145.3 (b), (e). The packages at issue here did not qualify for the benefit of those heightened protections and therefore were subject to customs inspection under 19 C.”
Avery v. United States, 434 F. Supp. 937 (D. Conn. 1977).
“” 19 C.F.R. § 145.3 (1976). 5 . To the knowledge of the Court, eight other actions have been brought under the FTCA in connection with the CIA mail openings.”
United States v. Soto-Teran, 44 F. Supp. 2d 185 (E.D.N.Y 1996).
· cites it 3× “Lindo improperly relies on 19 C.F.R. § 145.3 (1995) 4 and 19 U.S.C. § 482 (1978) 5 in arguing that McNamara could not open the envelope if he did not reasonably suspect that it contained merchandise which was imported contrary to law, such as contraband or a dutiable item.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.