Court Opinion

ID: 9730334
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 15:08:44.950174+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:05.850147
License: Public Domain

CROSBY, Acting P, J., Concurring.
I agree with the majority opinion except with respect to the concluding discussion which equates mailboxes to storage lockers or cabinets. A willful and malicious breaking into a private*574ly owned mailbox is a federal felony. (18 U.S.C. § 1705.) Storage lockers and cabinets in private buildings do not ordinarily enjoy such protection. And contrary to the comments of the trial judge, the mail in Weagley’s mailbox was still in the passage of the mails and not subject to seizure without a federal warrant.1 (See 18 U.S.C. § 1701 et seq.; Ross v. United States (8th Cir. 1967) 374 F.2d 97, 103, cert. den. 389 U.S. 882 [19 L.Ed.2d 177, 88 S.Ct. 130].) The only mail which could have been lawfully seized under this warrant was that which had been physically received by the addressee beforehand.
Cocaine not contained in a mailed article is not protected, however, even in a private mailbox. A state officer serving a search warrant does not act with malice when inspecting the interior of such a receptacle for items listed in the warrant. (18 U.S.C. § 1705.) Thus, assuming arguendo that the exclusionary rule would be applicable to evidence seized in violation of federal postal statutes (as opposed to the U.S. Const., 4th Amend.), the motion to suppress was properly denied because no violation of federal law occurred in this case.
Appellant’s petition for review by the Supreme Court was denied May 30, 1990.

 The junk mail in the mailbox was apparently not seized because it was addressed only to “occupant.”