Geocaches on mailboxes (split from other thread

[+sbell111]

Hey sbell i just got off the phone with the Postal Inspection Service. They said that to place such would not only be illegal, that not reporting knowledge of such a devise is illegal. After explain the possible fines and jail terms they ask if I had anything I need to tell them. I had to explain that it was brought up in a forum discussion and that someone was saying that it was not illegal. After a bit more discussion. He suggested that I read Title 18 in its entirety.

 

I think I got your answer.

 

IT IS ILLEGAL!!!!

That's funny. Do you have anything you want to tell me. :-)

Without a specific reference? No. Just because some flunky said something doesn't mean that it's true.

 

That isn't some flunky. That is the person that determines what is, or is not, illegal regarding mailbox usage. And, even if by some miraculous off chance that the courts disagreed...this is the "owner" of said boxes and it's obvious that geocachers do not have permission.

First of all, the person who determines what's illegal and what isn't is a judge, not that guy. Second of all, he isn't the owner.

[+sbell111]

Hey sbell i just got off the phone with the Postal Inspection Service. They said that to place such would not only be illegal, that not reporting knowledge of such a devise is illegal. After explain the possible fines and jail terms they ask if I had anything I need to tell them. I had to explain that it was brought up in a forum discussion and that someone was saying that it was not illegal. After a bit more discussion. He suggested that I read Title 18 in its entirety.

 

I think I got your answer.

 

IT IS ILLEGAL!!!!

That's funny. Do you have anything you want to tell me. :-)

Without a specific reference? No. Just because some flunky said something doesn't mean that it's true.

A flunky?!?

 

This was a Postal Inspector. You know the people that enforce the postal laws. Title 18 is their bread and butter. I wasn't speak to the receptionist. He was an Inspector.

Here's their phone number give them a call 877-876-2455.

 

Better yet all call them back and tell them all about you.

 

It's a mute point THE authority has spoken and stated it's illegal. Case closed.

That's fine that he told you that and he certainly may be correct. However, I don't see how Title 18 specifically supports what he told you. It's quite possible that it's not Title 18 that specifically makes these types of placements verboten but instead it may be covered by the previously referenced mystery reg.

[+sbell111]

... Better yet all call them back and tell them all about you. ...

Just out of curiousity, what would be the point of this?

 

'Some guy doubts that Title 18 covers this instance. Better lock him up'.

[+sbell111]

I think the Federal Govt claims and has ownership of mailboxes. That is why it is a federal crime to destroy or tamper with one that is in someones yard. ...

I have heard much the same thing. Even the one in your own yard is "theirs" but I've never seen the actual laws to verify the truth of the matter.

A year or so ago, some young goofs destroyed several mailboxes on my street. I wish the government would have gone to Home Depot and replace mine. It would have saved me a few hours and about $30.

[+egami]

First of all, the person who determines what's illegal and what isn't is a judge, not that guy.

 

As I stated...however, his department declares the rules for the USPS.

 

Second of all, he isn't the owner.

 

The USPS is the owner and his department absolutely makes that determination.

[+sbell111]

'Declares the rules for the USPS'?

[+Rockin Roddy]

Yep...the postal inspector's word would sway me to believe it's illegal. I had already known it wasn't a good place and one I'd likely skip!

[+sbell111]

Yep...the postal inspector's word would sway me to believe it's illegal. I had already known it wasn't a good place and one I'd likely skip!

It would sway me to believe that it was illegal, also. However, I wouldn't be convinced until I saw the controlling law/reg.

 

This game is pretty difficult to explain to someone. I can imagine that the standard answer would likely be given to avoid giving permission to something questionable.

[+egami]

'Declares the rules for the USPS'?

 

See the role of the Postal Inspector in the document already linked.

[+sbell111]

'Declares the rules for the USPS'?

See the role of the Postal Inspector in the document already linked.

The mission of postal inspectors is "to protect the U.S. Postal Service, its employees and its customers from criminal attack, and protect the nation's mail system from criminal misuse".

 

They basicall investigate 6 different issues:

 

1)Fraud: These types of investigation involve crimes that use the mails to facilitate fraud against consumers, business and government. Federal statutes that surround these types of investigations include, mail fraud, and other criminal statues when they are tied to the mails such as bank fraud, identity theft, credit card fraud, wire fraud, and Internet/computer fraud. Mail fraud is a statute that is used in prosecuting many white collar crimes, this would include, ponzi schemes, 419 frauds, and other white collar crimes where the mail was used to facilitate the fraud.

 

2)External Crime & Violent Crime Teams: The External Crimes Function of USPIS is a function that investigates any theft of US mail by non employees, assaults of postal employees and or theft and robberies of postal property. This function also investigates robberies of postal facilities and personnel, burglaries of postal facilities, and assaults and murders against postal personnel. This investigative function focuses on ensuring that the sanctity and trust in the U.S. Mail system is maintained.

 

3) Prohibited Mailing Investigations: Prohibited mailing investigations are USPIS investigations that focus on the prohibited mailing of contraband including: narcotics, precursors and proceeds; child pornography and other sexually prohibited materials; and hazardous materials to include, mail bombs, nuclear biological and chemical weapons. The laundering of narcotics and other criminal proceeds through the use of Postal Money Orders are sometimes categorized under this investigative function.

 

4) Aviation and Homeland Security: USPIS investigations also include the securing and protecting of transportation of US Mail and any risk that might compromise the security of the homeland because of these mails. Security Audits are conducted by these teams to ensure that postal service maintains facilities secure from not only theft and robberies but also natural and manmade disasters.

 

5) Revenue Investigations: USPIS investigates cases where fraudulent practices are conducted by business and consumers that mail items without proper or counterfeit postage and indicia or crimes that defraud the USPS of revenue.

 

6) International Investigations and Global Security: This investigative function ensures that international mail is secured and any international business decisions and campaigns remains safe, and secure. USPIS maintains investigators in the US and in posts around the world for protection, liaison, and intelligence.

 

(None of this is geocaching-related.)

Edited May 9, 2007 by sbell111

[+CSpenceFLY]

You ignored my challenge. Go place one, call them and tell them and let us know what happens.

 

Also ignored was my comment about what is not allowed on a mailbox.

 

Is a magnetic box placed under a mail box supported by the mailbox?

[+Miragee]

Is it legal,appropriate, or a good idea to place a geocache under a US postal service mailbox?

 

Discuss.

Whether or not it is legal can apparently be discussed, at length , but since a mailbox is likely to be close to another "more appropriate," certainly less-questionable place where a cache could be hidden, wouldn't it just be better to put the cache beneath that adjacent bush, or under the nearby newspaper rack, or on the neighboring lightpole?

Edited May 9, 2007 by Miragee

[+egami]

'Declares the rules for the USPS'?

See the role of the Postal Inspector in the document already linked.

The mission of postal inspectors is "to protect the U.S. Postal Service, its employees and its customers from criminal attack, and protect the nation's mail system from criminal misuse".

 

They basicall investigate 6 different issues:

 

1)Fraud: These types of investigation involve crimes that use the mails to facilitate fraud against consumers, business and government. Federal statutes that surround these types of investigations include, mail fraud, and other criminal statues when they are tied to the mails such as bank fraud, identity theft, credit card fraud, wire fraud, and Internet/computer fraud. Mail fraud is a statute that is used in prosecuting many white collar crimes, this would include, ponzi schemes, 419 frauds, and other white collar crimes where the mail was used to facilitate the fraud.

 

2)External Crime & Violent Crime Teams: The External Crimes Function of USPIS is a function that investigates any theft of US mail by non employees, assaults of postal employees and or theft and robberies of postal property. This function also investigates robberies of postal facilities and personnel, burglaries of postal facilities, and assaults and murders against postal personnel. This investigative function focuses on ensuring that the sanctity and trust in the U.S. Mail system is maintained.

 

3) Prohibited Mailing Investigations: Prohibited mailing investigations are USPIS investigations that focus on the prohibited mailing of contraband including: narcotics, precursors and proceeds; child pornography and other sexually prohibited materials; and hazardous materials to include, mail bombs, nuclear biological and chemical weapons. The laundering of narcotics and other criminal proceeds through the use of Postal Money Orders are sometimes categorized under this investigative function.

 

4) Aviation and Homeland Security: USPIS investigations also include the securing and protecting of transportation of US Mail and any risk that might compromise the security of the homeland because of these mails. Security Audits are conducted by these teams to ensure that postal service maintains facilities secure from not only theft and robberies but also natural and manmade disasters.

 

5) Revenue Investigations: USPIS investigates cases where fraudulent practices are conducted by business and consumers that mail items without proper or counterfeit postage and indicia or crimes that defraud the USPS of revenue.

 

6) International Investigations and Global Security: This investigative function ensures that international mail is secured and any international business decisions and campaigns remains safe, and secure. USPIS maintains investigators in the US and in posts around the world for protection, liaison, and intelligence.

 

(None of this is geocaching-related.)

 

Per the document, they are also responsible for enforcing postal laws. Which relates directly to geocaching when considering who determines if placing a cache on a mailbox owned by the USPS is illegal.

Edited May 9, 2007 by egami

[Keystone]

Caches placed in violation of law are against the listing guidelines:

 

We also assume that your cache placement complies with all applicable laws. If an obvious legal issue is present, or is brought to our attention, your listing may be immediately archived.

 

What's that? You doubt that placing a cache on the bottom of a blue US mailbox or green Mail Relay box is a violation of law? The volunteer cache reviewers think otherwise, based on our research (which includes discussions with postal service officials). But let's assume for sake of argument that there's no express violation of law or Postal Service Regulations. There are still two other guidelines that are relevant:

 

If you are given permission to place a cache on private property, indicate this on the cache page for the benefit of both the reviewer and people seeking out the cache.

 

Hopefully everyone can agree that the blue or green mailbox is the property of the US Postal Service. Was permission given to hide a cache on that property? I am aware of at least one time when permission was granted. So I will ask the hider to verify this if I know the cache is on a mail collection or relay box.

 

If that analysis doesn't work for you, try this section of the guidelines:

 

For all physical caches and waypoints, think carefully about how your container and the actions of geocachers will be perceived by the public. For example, a cache hidden in full view of office or apartment building windows exposes a geocacher to being seen by someone who may think the cache search looks suspicious. Your cache may be hidden on public property, but there may be concerned residents on the other side of that property line. And, while an ammo box or PVC pipe may be a great container if hidden deep in the woods, it may cause alarm if discovered in an urban setting. A clear plastic container or a microcache may be a better choice. In busy areas, avoid containers that look suspicious, including attachment materials like wires or tape. To reduce confusion and alarm when a cache is discovered accidentally, clearly label your container on the outside with appropriate information to say it is a geocache. Cover over any military markings with paint or a geocache sticker. Include an explanatory “stash note” inside your cache. Common sense in selecting hiding spots and containers can reduce the risk of your cache being perceived as a danger to those who are unaware of our sport.

 

Can you say "anthrax mailings" and "Unabomber?" How about the multiple reported instances where law enforcement has been called to investigate a cache attached to a mailbox? That's right -- the current example in Spokane is not unprecedented.

 

On this website, the listing guidelines are the applicable law. And I'm the Sheriff in these here parts.

[+sbell111]

Per the document, they are also responsible for enforcing postal laws. Which relates directly to geocaching when considering who determines if placing a cache on a mailbox owned by the USPS is illegal.

It is totally fine that they ar responsible for enforcing postal regs. This goes right back to my wondering what the actual regulations say.

[+ThirstyMick]

Who cares what the actual literal meaning of the regulations is? The fact that it is causing such a discussion should tell us that it's a bad idea to place a cache on a mailbox. Whether or not you could convince a judge in court should be irrelevant. Do you want to have to convince a judge in court? Is it really worth it on the principal that you don't think the law is worded clearly?!!

[+egami]

Per the document, they are also responsible for enforcing postal laws. Which relates directly to geocaching when considering who determines if placing a cache on a mailbox owned by the USPS is illegal.

It is totally fine that they ar responsible for enforcing postal regs. This goes right back to my wondering what the actual regulations say.

 

That entire document spells out a number of those regulations in addition to others that are spelled out in federal law. The most important regulation being that they are to be used specifically between the USPS and the customer for the explicit use of mail delivery. Outside of the legality issue it's clear that geocaching is not an intended use and at the very minimum should require permission from the postal inspector (which to my understanding is unlikely).

 

I think the very fact we are talking about a piece of controlled property with extensive restrictions in and of itself clearly draws a conclusive picture that this isn't an issue that should be treated with blatent disregard. It's one thing to have a cavalier attitude toward the use of general public property such as a park bench on a street corner and quite another to have such attitude toward the property used for distributing mail that has an entire regulatory system built around it. Especially in the age of anthrax scares and pipe bombs.

Edited May 9, 2007 by egami

[+sbell111]

Who cares what the actual literal meaning of the regulations is? The fact that it is causing such a discussion should tell us that it's a bad idea to place a cache on a mailbox. Whether or not you could convince a judge in court should be irrelevant. Do you want to have to convince a judge in court? Is it really worth it on the principal that you don't think the law is worded clearly?!!

The OP's question was whether the cache was 'legal'. That's what led us down this road.

[+sbell111]

Per the document, they are also responsible for enforcing postal laws. Which relates directly to geocaching when considering who determines if placing a cache on a mailbox owned by the USPS is illegal.

It is totally fine that they ar responsible for enforcing postal regs. This goes right back to my wondering what the actual regulations say.

 

That entire document spells out a number of those regulations in addition to others that are spelled out in federal law. The most important regulation being that they are to be used specifically between the USPS and the customer for the explicit use of mail delivery. Outside of the legality issue it's clear that geocaching is not an intended use and at the very minimum should require permission from the postal inspector (which to my understanding is unlikely).

 

I think the very fact we are talking about a piece of controlled property with extensive restrictions in and of itself clearly draws a conclusive picture that this isn't an issue that should be treated with blatent disregard. It's one thing to have a cavalier attitude toward the use of general public property such as a park bench on a street corner and quite another to have such attitude toward the property used for distributing mail that has an entire regulatory system built around it. Especially in the age of anthrax scares and pipe bombs.

Who in this thread is recommending a cavalier attitude or that anything is treated with blatent disregard? As far as I can tell, the two sides are 'This is illegal' and 'What do the regs say?'.

 

BTW, the document mentions that other regs exist, it doesn't actually cite them or offer their location.

Edited May 9, 2007 by sbell111

[Keystone]

The OP asked if mail collection box caches were "legal, appropriate or a good idea." Much of the discussion has been fixated on "legal." As I said in my last post, whether they're illegal under Federal law is only part of the inquiry; they're not legal under the Geocaching.com listing guidelines. And one reason for that is because such caches are not appropriate, and not a good idea.

[+sbell111]

The OP asked if mail collection box caches were "legal, appropriate or a good idea." Much of the discussion has been fixated on "legal." As I said in my last post, whether they're illegal under Federal law is only part of the inquiry; they're not legal under the Geocaching.com listing guidelines. And one reason for that is because such caches are not appropriate, and not a good idea.

I have to assume that the OP meant 'do they violate any local, state, or federal laws or regs' when he asked if they were 'legal'.

[+ThirstyMick]

Who cares what the actual literal meaning of the regulations is? The fact that it is causing such a discussion should tell us that it's a bad idea to place a cache on a mailbox. Whether or not you could convince a judge in court should be irrelevant. Do you want to have to convince a judge in court? Is it really worth it on the principal that you don't think the law is worded clearly?!!

The OP's question was whether the cache was 'legal'. That's what led us down this road.

 

Sorry I interpreted "legal, appropriate, or a good idea" to mean "should i put a cache on a mailbox?" b/c the answer to that question seems to be a resounding "no"

 

certainly the appropriate, and good idea portions of the question have a clear answer..

 

....argue away; its entertaining

Edited May 9, 2007 by ThirstyMick

[+Totem Clan]

I doesn't matter what you say. Unless you show him a law that says, "It is illegal to place a magnetic geocache on the bottom of a mail drop box," he's going to argue with you.

 

It's already been stated that it was illegal. The titles have been quoted. GC's viewpoint on it has been made clear. He's just arguing to be arguing. Don't waste your time. It won't do any good.

[+sbell111]

Who cares what the actual literal meaning of the regulations is? The fact that it is causing such a discussion should tell us that it's a bad idea to place a cache on a mailbox. Whether or not you could convince a judge in court should be irrelevant. Do you want to have to convince a judge in court? Is it really worth it on the principal that you don't think the law is worded clearly?!!

The OP's question was whether the cache was 'legal'. That's what led us down this road.

 

Sorry I interpreted "legal, appropriate, or a good idea" to mean "should i put a cache on a mailbox?" b/c the answer to that question seems to be a resounding "no"

 

certainly the appropriate, and good idea portions of the question have a clear answer..

 

....argue away its entertaining

I'm sure that this different understanding causes many threads to go sideways.

[+egami]

Per the document, they are also responsible for enforcing postal laws. Which relates directly to geocaching when considering who determines if placing a cache on a mailbox owned by the USPS is illegal.

It is totally fine that they ar responsible for enforcing postal regs. This goes right back to my wondering what the actual regulations say.

 

That entire document spells out a number of those regulations in addition to others that are spelled out in federal law. The most important regulation being that they are to be used specifically between the USPS and the customer for the explicit use of mail delivery. Outside of the legality issue it's clear that geocaching is not an intended use and at the very minimum should require permission from the postal inspector (which to my understanding is unlikely).

 

I think the very fact we are talking about a piece of controlled property with extensive restrictions in and of itself clearly draws a conclusive picture that this isn't an issue that should be treated with blatent disregard. It's one thing to have a cavalier attitude toward the use of general public property such as a park bench on a street corner and quite another to have such attitude toward the property used for distributing mail that has an entire regulatory system built around it. Especially in the age of anthrax scares and pipe bombs.

Who in this thread is recommending a cavalier attitude or that anything is treated with blatent disregard? As far as I can tell, the two sides are 'This is illegal' and 'What do the regs say?'.

 

BTW, the document mentions that other regs exist, it doesn't actually cite them or offer their location.

 

Well, quite clearly you aren't foolish enough to come and state such defiant comments. No one is claiming anyone in this thread said or suggested such a thing.

 

However, I certainly don't view ones actions to continually ignore numerous facts indicating that this is a bad idea and most certainly illegal to be one that is trying to give utmost regard to the situation.

[+sbell111]

I doesn't matter what you say. Unless you show him a law that says, "It is illegal to place a magnetic geocache on the bottom of a mail drop box," he's going to argue with you.

 

It's already been stated that it was illegal. The titles have been quoted. GC's viewpoint on it has been made clear. He's just arguing to be arguing. Don't waste your time. It won't do any good.

TC, I'm surprised to see that you posted that. It is hurtful and couldn't be further from the truth.

 

The fact is, I haven't seen anything that specifically states that this is legal beyond 'somebody said so'. I read through Title 18 before ever posting to this thread and didn't see anything that applied. I asked if anyone had knowledge of the 'other' reg so we could see if that applied.

 

While GC's viewpoint is clear, it doesn't actually speak to the question of legality.

[+egami]

I doesn't matter what you say. Unless you show him a law that says, "It is illegal to place a magnetic geocache on the bottom of a mail drop box," he's going to argue with you.

 

It's already been stated that it was illegal. The titles have been quoted. GC's viewpoint on it has been made clear. He's just arguing to be arguing. Don't waste your time. It won't do any good.

TC, I'm surprised to see that you posted that. It is hurtful and couldn't be further from the truth.

 

The fact is, I haven't seen anything that specifically states that this is legal beyond 'somebody said so'. I read through Title 18 before ever posting to this thread and didn't see anything that applied. I asked if anyone had knowledge of the 'other' reg so we could see if that applied.

 

While GC's viewpoint is clear, it doesn't actually speak to the question of legality.

 

The legal document I linked specifically states that isn't the intended usage. Two USPS officials have made statements this isn't legal...including one from the specific agency that defines such laws.

 

While that may seem "hurtful" that is the attitude that is coming across out of your replies on the topic.

 

I don't think that was any kind of intentional personal attack.

[+sbell111]

Forgive me, but I don't understand your post.

Who in this thread is recommending a cavalier attitude or that anything is treated with blatent disregard? As far as I can tell, the two sides are 'This is illegal' and 'What do the regs say?'.

 

BTW, the document mentions that other regs exist, it doesn't actually cite them or offer their location.

 

Well, quite clearly you aren't foolish enough to come and state such defiant comments. No one is claiming anyone in this thread said or suggested such a thing.

foolish enough to state that this issue should be treated with blatent disregard? Of course it shouldn't, but then again, no one was treating it that way.

However, I certainly don't view ones actions to continually ignore numerous facts indicating that this is a bad idea and most certainly illegal to be one that is trying to give utmost regard to the situation.

There is a difference between 'bad idea' and 'illegal'. It hasn't been shown to be illegal. I've continued to search for a citation or reg, but haven't turned up anything.

 

BTW, what 'facts'. I've seen a ton of opinion, but no facts. I've looked for facts. If someone else turns some facts up, please let us all know.

[+Too Tall John]

While GC's viewpoint is clear, it doesn't actually speak to the question of legality.

Keystone says that multiple reviewers have researched this and found it to be illegal. Good enough for me.

What's that? You doubt that placing a cache on the bottom of a blue US mailbox or green Mail Relay box is a violation of law? The volunteer cache reviewers think otherwise, based on our research (which includes discussions with postal service officials).

[+sbell111]

The legal document I linked specifically states that isn't the intended usage. Two USPS officials have made statements this isn't legal...including one from the specific agency that defines such laws.

Whether or not it is the intended usage has no bearing as to whether it is illegal. While the two opinions are telling, they don't help identify the controlling law or reg. Postal Inspectors do not 'define' laws or regs.

While that may seem "hurtful" that is the attitude that is coming across out of your replies on the topic.

How could my replies to this topic be hurtful? I haven't attacked anybody. I've merely tried to figure out the legalities of sticking a magnet to the bottom of r2d2.

I don't think that was any kind of intentional personal attack.

I don't know whether it was. It was shocking to come from TC.

[+sbell111]

While GC's viewpoint is clear, it doesn't actually speak to the question of legality.

Keystone says that multiple reviewers have researched this and found it to be illegal. Good enough for me.

What's that? You doubt that placing a cache on the bottom of a blue US mailbox or green Mail Relay box is a violation of law? The volunteer cache reviewers think otherwise, based on our research (which includes discussions with postal service officials).

It's totally fine that it is enough for you and for Lep and whoever else. Myself, I like to read the laws that I believe are likely 'questionable'.

[+egami]

foolish enough to state that this issue should be treated with blatent disregard? Of course it shouldn't, but then again, no one was treating it that way.

 

When someone is bending over backwards to ignore facts it comes off that way. All you've done is repeated assert your opinion when there are various facts that we've posted from various authorities to demonstrate otherwise.

 

BTW, what 'facts'. I've seen a ton of opinion, but no facts. I've looked for facts. If someone else turns some facts up, please let us all know.

 

Two of us have called USPS employees directly. Not to mention your blatently disregarding the fact I've repeated numerous times that shows the USPS intentions for mail delivery don't include ancillary use of mailboxes. Use defined legally between the Service (USPS) and the end-user.

Edited May 9, 2007 by egami

[+TrailGators]

While GC's viewpoint is clear, it doesn't actually speak to the question of legality.

Keystone says that multiple reviewers have researched this and found it to be illegal. Good enough for me.

What's that? You doubt that placing a cache on the bottom of a blue US mailbox or green Mail Relay box is a violation of law? The volunteer cache reviewers think otherwise, based on our research (which includes discussions with postal service officials).

I agree. I never understand why people push the envelope or argue about stuff like this when there are limitless places to hide caches that clearly meet the guidelines. It's not like we are running out of real estate folks. Edited May 9, 2007 by TrailGators

[+briansnat]

Hey sbell i just got off the phone with the Postal Inspection Service. They said that to place such would not only be illegal, that not reporting knowledge of such a devise is illegal. After explain the possible fines and jail terms they ask if I had anything I need to tell them. I had to explain that it was brought up in a forum discussion and that someone was saying that it was not illegal. After a bit more discussion. He suggested that I read Title 18 in its entirety.

 

I think I got your answer.

 

IT IS ILLEGAL!!!!

Thanks, but I can't find anything in Title 18 that's on point.

 

Hey, what more can be said? Go ahead and place a cache on a mailbox if you like but don't muddy the waters here and possibly influcence someone else to do it.

 

I have a feeling if someone came here and said the sky was blue you would start an argument.

Edited May 9, 2007 by briansnat

[+sbell111]

Hey sbell i just got off the phone with the Postal Inspection Service. They said that to place such would not only be illegal, that not reporting knowledge of such a devise is illegal. After explain the possible fines and jail terms they ask if I had anything I need to tell them. I had to explain that it was brought up in a forum discussion and that someone was saying that it was not illegal. After a bit more discussion. He suggested that I read Title 18 in its entirety.

 

I think I got your answer.

 

IT IS ILLEGAL!!!!

Thanks, but I can't find anything in Title 18 that's on point.

 

Hey, what more can be said? Go ahead and place a cache on a mailbox if you like but don't muddy the waters here and possibly influcence someone else to do it.

 

I have a feeling if someone came here and said the sky was blue you would start an argument.

I have a feeling that you just feel like piling on.

 

The fact is, as Lep mentioned, the hypothetical cache would be denied or be archived when it's location became known.

 

Let me ask you an honest question that's on point. If someone told you that something was illegal and your research found nothing to support this declaration, would you think that it would be appropriate to ask for a legal citation or would you just take it on faith?

[+Totem Clan]

What will it take to prove to you that it is illegal, and if that proof is given will you accept it?

[+Too Tall John]

I have a feeling if someone came here and said the sky was blue you would start an argument.

To say tht the sky is blue isn't 100% accurate. At night, the sky is not blue. Also, on a cloudy day, the sky is not blue. What about all those poor colorblind people out there? Saying that the sky is blue is taking away from what they might think the sky is really like.

Someone once gave me this advice concerning a certain poster:

 

Don't feed the troll.

[+egami]

Let me ask you an honest question that's on point. If someone told you that something was illegal and your research found nothing to support this declaration, would you think that it would be appropriate to ask for a legal citation or would you just take it on faith?

 

Funny, my fisrt statement on the entire topic was that I believed it was illegal. I then started researching the issue and found various published legal documents that stated such action could be deemed illegal. I then verified it with a USPS employee...two in fact now, just to re-affirm what someone else stated when they called the Postal Inspection department.

 

Ready to find out the truth?

 

877-876-2455

 

That's their number (at least for my region, feel free to contact your own region). Call it. Get it directly from the horses mouth and quit attacking people who have done some legitimate research and invistegation on the issue with nothing more than personal opinion and flawed logical attacks that are too numerous to list off.

 

You are deliberately skirting the issue by not doing your own due diligence to determine the legality other than sitting back on your hands pretending that it isn't so because it hasn't been delivered to you on a silver platter.

Edited May 9, 2007 by egami

[+sbell111]

What will it take to prove to you that it is illegal, and if that proof is given will you accept it?

I've posted that several times in this thread and in the PMs you and I have had back and forth.

 

This issue apparently hangs on the referenced regulation that I can't find a copy of. Has anyone else been able to locate it?

 

I'll tell you what. I'm done with this thread. If someone finds that reg, please PM me.

[+sbell111]

Let me ask you an honest question that's on point. If someone told you that something was illegal and your research found nothing to support this declaration, would you think that it would be appropriate to ask for a legal citation or would you just take it on faith?

 

Funny, my fisrt statement on the entire topic was that I believed it was illegal. I then started researching the issue and found various published legal documents that stated such action could be deemed illegal. I then verified it with a USPS employee...two in fact now, just to re-affirm what someone else stated when they called the Postal Inspection department.

 

Ready to find out the truth?

 

877-876-2455

 

That's their number (at least for my region, feel free to contact your own region). Call it. Get it directly from the horses mouth and quit attacking people who have done some legitimate research and invistegation on the issue with nothing more than personal opinion and flawed logical attacks that are too numerous to list off.

 

You are deliberately skirting the issue by not doing your own due diligence to determine the legality other than sitting back on your hands pretending that it isn't so because it hasn't been delivered to you on a silver platter.

I haven't attacked anyone and I did do my due diligence. If you recall, I was the one who dug up Title 18.

 

Now, I'm done. (I hope.)

[+Totem Clan]

What will it take to prove to you that it is illegal, and if that proof is given will you accept it?

I've posted that several times in this thread and in the PMs you and I have had back and forth.

 

This issue apparently hangs on the referenced regulation that I can't find a copy of. Has anyone else been able to locate it?

 

I'll tell you what. I'm done with this thread. If someone finds that reg, please PM me.

This comes to me from a Postal Inspector, my local Post Master and the Judge Advocate General (closest thing I have to an attorney). BTW I've already post it once in this thread, may you just didn't see it.

 

Title 18, United States Code, Section 1705

 

All three cited that Title and Section and said that is what you would be prosecuted under if you were to attach a magnetic geocache to the underside of a mail drop box.

 

What more can be said?

 

PM sent.

[Keystone]

I'll tell you what. I'm done with this thread.

Good. Don't post to it again. Let others discuss the topic without having each of their posts picked apart and challenged.

[+Too Tall John]

This is quoted from here

During litigation of the case, the Service offered a number of justifications for the mailbox restriction in addition to protecting postal revenue and reducing unstamped matter left in mailboxes. The Service said the mailbox restriction aided investigations of mail theft by enabling investigators to assume that anyone other than a letter carrier or the postal customer who opens a mailbox may be stealing mail. For example, the Service said the restriction helped it to investigate thefts of government benefit checks from mailboxes.

Hmm... sounds like at least the spirit of the law says:

"Stay away from mailboxes!"

[+egami]

Let me ask you an honest question that's on point. If someone told you that something was illegal and your research found nothing to support this declaration, would you think that it would be appropriate to ask for a legal citation or would you just take it on faith?

 

Funny, my fisrt statement on the entire topic was that I believed it was illegal. I then started researching the issue and found various published legal documents that stated such action could be deemed illegal. I then verified it with a USPS employee...two in fact now, just to re-affirm what someone else stated when they called the Postal Inspection department.

 

Ready to find out the truth?

 

877-876-2455

 

That's their number (at least for my region, feel free to contact your own region). Call it. Get it directly from the horses mouth and quit attacking people who have done some legitimate research and invistegation on the issue with nothing more than personal opinion and flawed logical attacks that are too numerous to list off.

 

You are deliberately skirting the issue by not doing your own due diligence to determine the legality other than sitting back on your hands pretending that it isn't so because it hasn't been delivered to you on a silver platter.

I haven't attacked anyone and I did do my due diligence. If you recall, I was the one who dug up Title 18.

 

Now, I'm done. (I hope.)

 

You are attacking our research....excuse me, same thing in my book. And no, you have not done your due diligence. Most of what you've posted is purely opinion...or is attacking legal definitions people have posted.

Edited May 9, 2007 by egami

[Keystone]

Since sbell111 has made a graceful exit from this thread, let's stop responding to his posts and move on with independent discussion of the subject. Thanks.

[+egami]

Since sbell111 has made a graceful exit from this thread, let's stop responding to his posts and move on with independent discussion of the subject. Thanks.

 

I don't think there is too much more to say...in summary:

 

- Armchair legal analysts seem to think it's most likely illegal to place caches attached to mailboxes owned by the USPS.

 

- Numerous members of GC.com seem to have verified with local/regional USPS officials that they also believe this is most likely illegal.

 

Conventional wisdom would conclude that this is not a good practice and that most likely there are adjacent objects or areas in the vicinity of mailboxes that are suitable hosts for caches.

 

It's probably fair to note that there are mailboxes that exist that aren't used by the USPS. I know of one or two that people have bought and use for other purposes, but in either case are most likely owned by someone in which case permission would need to be obtained.

 

I also suppose it's possible someone could create a cache that was a mailbox that wasn't a USPS owned box.

 

In general, it's probably best to avoid placing them there though...especially since if it's your cache your information would be relatively easy to obtain should it ever get pushed to an investigation for any reason and at the end of the day none of us need that headache.

 

I won't personally go on a vendetta for these types of caches, but I will e-mail the cache owner of the potential liability if I find any.

Edited May 9, 2007 by egami

[Trinity's Crew]

Well since he's gone there isn't anybody left to discuss it with.

[+CSpenceFLY]

Can anyone find where this came from?Quoted from an earlier post.

 

If you read on it says:

 

In addition to the mailbox restriction law, Postal Service regulations

provide that “every letterbox or other receptacle intended or used for the

receipt or delivery of mail” may be used only for matter bearing postage

and that any mailable matter found in mailboxes without postage is

subject to payment of the same postage as if it had been carried by mail.7

Postal Service regulations are broader than the mailbox restriction law.

The regulations restrict items placed upon, supported by, attached to,

hung from, or inserted into a mailbox.However, the regulations do not

apply to door slots, among other things.

[+egami]

Can anyone find where this came from?Quoted from an earlier post.

 

If you read on it says:

 

In addition to the mailbox restriction law, Postal Service regulations

provide that “every letterbox or other receptacle intended or used for the

receipt or delivery of mail” may be used only for matter bearing postage

and that any mailable matter found in mailboxes without postage is

subject to payment of the same postage as if it had been carried by mail.7

Postal Service regulations are broader than the mailbox restriction law.

The regulations restrict items placed upon, supported by, attached to,

hung from, or inserted into a mailbox.However, the regulations do not

apply to door slots, among other things.

 

Yes, this came from the document I've linked one or two places now: http://www.gao.gov/archive/1997/gg97085.pdf

 

If you search the PDF you should find the exact clause.

[+CSpenceFLY]

Here is one for the legal crowd to mull over.

 

If the USPS found one of these cahces could everyone on the log be prosecuted for attaching the cache to the mailbox since every single person did in fact remove it and put it back?

 

:-)