Whoever willfully or maliciously injures, tears down or destroys any letter box or other receptacle intended or used for the receipt or delivery of mail on any mail route, or breaks open the same or willfully or maliciously injures, defaces or destroys any mail deposited therein, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
June 25, 1948, ch. 645 62 Stat. 779 May 24, 1949, ch. 139, § 38 63 Stat. 95 Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(H)108 Stat. 2147 Pub. L. 107–273, div. B, title III, § 3002(a)(2)116 Stat. 1805 (, ; , ; , , ; , , .)
Historical and Revision Notes
Act1948
Mar. 4, 1909, ch. 321, § 198 35 Stat. 1126 May 18, 1916, ch. 126, § 10 39 Stat. 162 July 28, 1916, ch. 261, § 1 39 Stat. 418 May 7, 1934, ch. 220, § 1 48 Stat. 667 Based on title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed., § 321 (, ; , ; , ; , ).
section 1702 of this titlesection 1702 of this titleHuebner v. United StatesWords “or shall willfully take or steal such mail from or out of such letter box or other receptacle” were omitted as covered by . Prosecutions for theft of mail matter are invariably made under that section whereas this section is used as basis for prosecutions for malicious mischief to mail boxes or receptacles. By Postal Regulations (1928), section 700, paragraph 2, an ordinary letter box is within this section and also . (C.C.A. 1928, 28 F. 2d 929).
section 2 of this titleReference to persons assisting or aiding was omitted. Such persons are principals under definitive .
Minor changes were made in phraseology.
Act1949
section 1705 of title 18As amended by this section [section 38] of the bill, , U.S.C., is brought more closely into conformity with the original statute from which it was derived by eliminating an inadvertent reference to a “conveyance” which was not in the original statute. (See S. Rept. No. 133, 81st Cong.)
Editorial Notes
Amendments
Pub. L. 107–2732002— inserted “, or both” after “years”.
Pub. L. 103–3221994— substituted “fined under this title” for “fined not more than $1,000”.
1949—Act , struck out reference to a “conveyance” which was not in original statute.