United States v. J. Robert Huie

Fifth Circuit

United States v. J. Robert Huie

593 F.2d 14, 1979 U.S. App. LEXIS 15442

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedApril 13, 1979

Docket78-3250

StatusPublished

Cited by12 cases

This text of 593 F.2d 14 (United States v. J. Robert Huie) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. J. Robert Huie, 593 F.2d 14, 1979 U.S. App. LEXIS 15442 (5th Cir. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The petitioner filed a collateral attack on his federal conviction for conspiracy to defraud by use of the mails and mail fraud, on the ground that the Post Office Department maintained a “mail cover” on his incoming and outgoing mail in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

The original petition attacked the validity of any mail cover. A mail cover consists of the Postal Service’s making a record concerning information appearing on the exterior of mail items: the name of the addressee, the postmark, the name and address of the sender (if it appears), and the class of mail. The mail itself is delivered to the addressee. The information is treated as confidential and is furnished to the requesting governmental agency. See 39 C.F.R. 233.2; U. S. v. Choate, 576 F.2d 165, 174 (CA9, 1978). Both before and after Katz v. U. S., 389 U.S. 347, 88 S.Ct. 507, 19 *15 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967), the courts uniformly have upheld the constitutionality of mail covers. See full discussion in Choate, 576 F.2d at 174-180. There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in information placed on the exterior of mailed items and open to view and specifically intended to be viewed by others.

This is not to say, however, that a mail cover which extends beyond its proper scope cannot be a violation of the Fourth Amendment. In his amended petition Huie alleged that through the Freedom of Information Act he has discovered evidence tending to show that his mail was opened and inspected; he attached to the amended petition copies of documents which arguably support this contention. The order denying the petition as amended did not address this point.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED for further proceedings.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

The petitioner filed a collateral attack on his federal conviction for conspiracy to defraud by use of the mails and mail fraud, on the ground that the Post Office Department maintained a “mail cover” on his incoming and outgoing mail in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

The original petition attacked the validity of any mail cover. A mail cover consists of the Postal Service’s making a record concerning information appearing on the exterior of mail items: the name of the addressee, the postmark, the name and address of the sender (if it appears), and the class of mail. The mail itself is delivered to the addressee. The information is treated as confidential and is furnished to the requesting governmental agency. See 39 C.F.R. 233.2; U. S. v. Choate, 576 F.2d 165, 174 (CA9, 1978). Both before and after Katz v. U. S., 389 U.S. 347, 88 S.Ct. 507, 19 *15 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967), the courts uniformly have upheld the constitutionality of mail covers. See full discussion in Choate, 576 F.2d at 174-180. There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in information placed on the exterior of mailed items and open to view and specifically intended to be viewed by others.

This is not to say, however, that a mail cover which extends beyond its proper scope cannot be a violation of the Fourth Amendment. In his amended petition Huie alleged that through the Freedom of Information Act he has discovered evidence tending to show that his mail was opened and inspected; he attached to the amended petition copies of documents which arguably support this contention. The order denying the petition as amended did not address this point.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED for further proceedings.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

593 F.2d 14, 1979 U.S. App. LEXIS 15442, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-j-robert-huie-ca5-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack