18 U.S.C. § 1702
Obstruction of correspondence
Whoever takes any letter, postal card, or package out of any post office or any authorized depository for mail matter, or from any letter or mail carrier, or which has been in any post office or authorized depository, or in the custody of any letter or mail carrier, before it has been delivered to the person to whom it was directed, with design to obstruct the correspondence, or to pry into the business or secrets of another, or opens, secretes, embezzles, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 209
cases (30 in the last 5 years), 1950–2026 · leading case: Pollard v. United States, 352 U.S. 354 (1957).
Pollard v. United States, 352 U.S. 354 (1957). “On September 8, 1952, petitioner pleaded guilty in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota to an information charging him with the unlawful taking and embezzlement of a United States Treasury check in violation of 18 U. S. C. § 1702 . The district judge…”
United States v. Ramsey, 431 U.S. 606 (1977). “18 U. S. C. § 1702 . We are unable to agree with the Court of Appeals that the opening of international mail in search of customs violations, *624 under the above guidelines, impermissibly chills the exercise of free speech.”
United States Postal Serv. v. Council of Greenburgh Civic Associations, 453 U.S. 114 (1981). “See 18 U. S. C. §§ 1702 , 1705, and 1708. It is not without irony that this elaborate system of regulation, coupled with the historic dependence of the Nation on the Postal Service, has been the causal factor which led to this litigation.”
United States v. Morgan, 346 U.S. 502 (1954). “§ 317 (now 18 U. S. C. §§ 1702 , 1708) and 18 U. S. C.”
United States v. Ella Louise Forbes & Lillie Mae Berry, 816 F.2d 1006 (5th Cir. 1987). “The first count charged them with conspiracy to violate 18 U.S.C. § 1702 2 and § 495. 3 Count two charged Berry with violating section 1702, and charged Forbes with aiding and abetting that offense, 18 U.”
United States v. Kathleen Kremser Jones, 107 F.3d 1147 (6th Cir. 1997). “§ 1708 ; and one count of obstruction of correspondence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1702 . J.A. at 30-31. One of the government’s primary arguments at trial was that Jones’s signature was on: (1) the credit card application; (2) a post-office box registration form for the…”
Patterson v. Fed. Bureau of Investigation, 705 F. Supp. 1033 (D.N.J. 1989). “, as a result of the FBI’s maintenance of files describing plaintiff’s exercise of rights guaranteed by the First Amendment; and violations of plaintiff’s First and Fourth Amendment rights and of 18 U.S.C. § 1702 and 19 U.S.C. § 482 , statutes relating to the U.”
Sciolino v. Marine Midland Bank-W., 463 F. Supp. 128 (W.D.N.Y. 1979). “Plaintiff also seeks to support federal question jurisdiction by claiming that defendants violated 18 U.S.C. §§ 1702 and 1703(b). 3 These sections are penal in nature.”
United States v. Lozano, 623 F.3d 1055 (9th Cir. 2010). “18 U.S.C. § 1702 . Nor do societal understandings legitimize a nonaddressee's expectation of privacy.”
United States v. Quentin Hinton, AKA Ronnie Baldwin, 222 F.3d 664 (9th Cir. 2000). “The statute itself does not define “delivered,” and the wording of the statute does not give a clear indication of the meaning.”
United States v. John Henry Brown, 551 F.2d 236 (8th Cir. 1977). “John Henry Brown appeals from his conviction for taking a package from an authorized depository for mail with design to open, secrete and embezzle in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1702 . Brown argues that the trial court erred in refusing his request for a lesser included offense…”
United States v. Albert P. Childs, 598 F.2d 169 (D.C. Cir. 1979). “It is well known that, even when a limiting instruction is likely to aid the accused’s cause, astute defense counsel may prefer tactically to forego it in the interest of avoiding its inevitable focus of the jury’s attention on unfavorable evidence. 43 Certainly in a situation…”
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.