TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

United States v. J. Robert Huie

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. J. Robert HUIE, Defendant-Appellant

United States v. J. Robert Huie, 593 F.2d 14 (5th Cir. 1979)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
April 13, 1979
Docket
No. 78-3250
Judges
Ainsworth, Godbold, Per Curiam, Vance
Citations
593 F.2d 141979 U.S. App. LEXIS 15442

Opinion — Per Curiam

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.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 3 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

1980: 11983: 31984: 11987: 11988: 11997: 12026: 119802026peak 1983 · 3

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. People v. Sporleder666 P.2d 135 (Colo. 1983)
  2. United States v. Sonja Yvette Osunegbu822 F.2d 472 (5th Cir. 1987)
  3. State v. Waz692 A.2d 1217 (Conn. 1997)
  4. United States v. John A. Depoli628 F.2d 779 (2d Cir. 1980)
  5. Vreeken v. Davis718 F.2d 343 (10th Cir. 1983)
  6. United States v. James Thomas729 F.2d 120 (2d Cir. 1984)

Most recent

  1. MARCOS RAMOS v. AMAZON.COM, INC.No. 2:24-cv-00089 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 17, 2026)
  2. State v. Waz692 A.2d 1217 (Conn. 1997)
  3. United States v. Clark695 F. Supp. 1257 (D. Me. 1988)
  4. United States v. Sonja Yvette Osunegbu822 F.2d 472 (5th Cir. 1987)
  5. United States v. James Thomas729 F.2d 120 (2d Cir. 1984)
  6. Fred v. Davis718 F.2d 343 (10th Cir. 1983)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967) 10,783
United States v. Choate, 576 F.2d 165 (9th Cir. 1978) 74

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list