Summary
The Third Circuit held that a conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 1701 for obstructing the mails requires only a "measurable delay" when the delay results from an individual's unauthorized, willful conduct, rather than a "substantial delay" required in cases of authorized law enforcement activity such as mail covers. The court affirmed the defendant's conviction for taking a test parcel, retaining it overnight, and causing it to be delayed in the mail stream, rejecting the argument that the government must prove a substantial delay. The opinion distinguishes between lawful government actions that cause only insubstantial delay and improper private actions that delay the mail for illegitimate reasons.
Holdings
- A willful obstruction of the passage of the mail for an illegitimate reason violates § 1701 if the delay was measurable; a substantial delay is not required.
Questions Presented
- Whether a delay in the mail caused by unauthorized private conduct must be 'substantial' to violate 18 U.S.C. § 1701, or whether a measurable delay is sufficient.
Disposition
affirmed
Cases Cited (11)
- United States v. Schankowski, 782 F.2d 628 (6th Cir. 1986)(cited)
- Lustiger v. United States, 386 F.2d 132 (9th Cir. 1967)(distinguished)
- Cohen v. United States, 378 F.2d 751 (9th Cir. 1967)(distinguished)
- Canaday v. United States, 354 F.2d 849 (8th Cir. 1966)(distinguished)
- United States v. Costello, 255 F.2d 876 (2d Cir. 1958)(distinguished)
- United States v. Beckley, 335 F.2d 86 (6th Cir. 1964)(distinguished)
- United States v. Johnson, 620 F.2d 413 (4th Cir. 1980)(followed)
- United States v. Austin, 492 F. Supp. 502 (N.D. Ill. 1980)(followed)
- United States v. Kirby, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 482 (1869)(cited)
- United States v. Furst, 886 F.2d 558 (3d Cir. 1989)(cited)
Showing top 10 of 11.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.