C.F.R. » Title 39 » CHAPTER I—UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE › SUBCHAPTER D—ORGANIZATION AND ADMINISTRATION › PART 231—PROTECTION OF POST OFFICES

39 C.F.R. § 231.1

Responsibility

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) The protection of mail, postal funds, and property is a responsibility of every postal employee.

(b) The Chief Postal Inspector is designated as the Security Officer for the U.S. Postal Service. That official is responsible for the issuance of instructions and regulations pertaining to security requirements within the Postal Service.

(39 U.S.C. 401) [36 FR 4762, Mar. 12, 1971]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1995–2025 · leading case: Hughes v. United States, 110 F.3d 765 (11th Cir. 1997).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Hughes v. United States, 110 F.3d 765 (11th Cir. 1997). “Regarding each individual post office, the postmaster or a supervisor designated by the postmaster acts as Security Control Officer for that post office and is “responsible for the general security of the post office, its stations and branches, in accordance with rules and…”
Leslie v. United States, 986 F. Supp. 900 (D.N.J. 1997). “” 39 C.F.R. § 231.1 (b); Hughes, 110 F.3d at 768 .”
Ramirez v. United States Postal Serv., 893 F. Supp. 121 (D.P.R. 1995). “” 39 C.F.R. § 231.1 (b). Pursuant to § 231.”
Troy Fagg v. USA, 649 F. App'x 897 (11th Cir. 2016). “” 39 C.F.R. § 231.1 (b). In accordance with the rules issued by the Chief Postal Inspector, each postmaster or a designated supervisor is responsible for the general security of a post office, its stations, and branches.”
Schaap v. United States (D. Conn. 2025). “(citing 39 C.F.R. § 231.1 (b)). Thus, the “postmaster or designated supervisor acts as the Security Control Officer for each individual post office, and as such is ‘responsible for the general security of the post office, its stations and branches, in accordance with rules and…”
Higgins v. United States (4th Cir. 1996). “See 39 C.F.R. §§ 231.1 , 231.2 (1995). We find that the district court properly concluded that the decision whether to provide security at individual post offices involves considerations of public policy.”
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.