Mail sent to my address for someone who doesn&#39;t live there and I don&#39;t do any work for free
<p>I don't work for free.  I don't write on envelopes, call the post office, or do anything that I don't personally want to do unless I am getting paid to do it.</p>
<p>I keep getting mail in my mailbox that isn't for me or anyone residing at my address.  I don't want this mail, and as far as the effort I have remaining it is writing this post and reading the answers, as well as immediately dropping all my mail (that includes mail for me) into the garbage bin above which I occasionally pull some random items to keep and open.</p>
<p>I know I am not required to work for free and write on other people's mail that ends up in my mailbox.  I am a free person and not required to do servile labor without compensation.</p>
<p>There appears to be a contradiction to my lack of enslavement or indentured servitude with a concept that someone can put mail in my mailbox and then expect me to work for someone else if that mail isn't for me.  How does this actually work?  If my intent is not to do unpaid labor, and a natural consequence of this is that other people's mail to my address ends up in the trash bin how is this a crime?  My intent is for the mail to disappear and take care of itself, what ends up happening is that it sadly descends into the trash bin and doesn't disappear.</p>

<blockquote>
<p>There appears to be a contradiction to my lack of enslavement or indentured servitude with a concept that someone can put mail in my mailbox and then expect me to work for someone else if that mail isn't for me.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The law can, and does, impose duties on a person that that person never chose to accept. For example, paying taxes.  The prohibition on slavery does not mean that no requirements can be placed on a person.</p>
<p>As another answer has said: in the US <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1702" rel="nofollow noreferrer">18 USC 1702</a> makes it a crime to improperly handle mail, including to &quot;secrete&quot; or &quot;destroy&quot; such mail. This is a Federal felony, punishable by fine and up to 5 years imprisonment (and being required to work in prison is an exception to the prohibition on slavery).</p>
<p>The Findlaw page <a href="https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-charges/is-it-illegal-to-shred-previous-tenants-mail.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">&quot;Is It Illegal to Shred Previous Tenants' Mail?&quot;</a> reads:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>Is It Illegal to Open or Shred a Previous Tenant's Mail?</strong></p>
<p>Yes. It is a federal crime to open or destroy mail that is not intended for you. The law provides that you can not &quot;destroy, hide, open, or embezzle&quot; mail that is not addressed to you.</p>
<p>If you intentionally open or destroy someone else's mail, you are committing obstruction of correspondence, which is a felony. If you are found guilty of obstruction of correspondence, you could potentially face five years in prison and/or fines.</p>
<p><strong>What Should I Do If I Receive the Previous Tenant's Mail?</strong></p>
<p>It is common to receive previous tenants' mail, especially if previous tenants did not change their mailing address with the U.S. Postal Service. If this happens, you should write something like &quot;return to sender,&quot; &quot;wrong address,&quot; or &quot;person does not reside here anymore&quot; and put it back in the mailbox. The mail carrier will take care of it from there.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The page <a href="https://www.mymove.com/moving/guides/mail-isnt-yours/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">&quot;Did You Accidentally Commit a Felony? What to Do With Mail That Isn’t Yours&quot;</a> reads:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>There’s a reason that the federal government makes tampering with mail illegal. Most people receive a number of personal and confidential documents through the mail that can be used to steal their identity. In fact, seven people were arrested in Georgia for stealing mail and cashing the checks they found. In 2018, a postal worker received felony and misdemeanor charges for failing to deliver thousands of pieces of mail that he later dumped in a ravine. But for every person who intentionally mishandles mail and makes headlines, there are many more who accidentally break the law just by failing to properly forward the wrong address mail they receive.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The page <a href="https://www.usglobalmail.com/how-to-return-mail-to-sender/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">&quot;How to Return Mail to Sender&quot;</a> from US Global mail reads:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Step One: Write “Not At This Address” On The Envelope</p>
<p>This does also work with parcels! You need to ensure that you write “Not at this address” on the packaging. You might be tempted to write “Return to sender” in this instance but this isn’t the proper wording here.</p>
<p>Alongside this, there are some other considerations at this stage. You must ensure that any barcodes are defaced. Otherwise, you will find that the parcel or envelope will come back to your address. However, be careful to not cross the address. The mail carrier needs to understand that the person no longer lives there.</p>
<p>If the problem persists (i.e. you keep getting mail addressed to the previous resident), you need to let your mail carrier know. Alternatively, you can contact your local Post Office. Either way, this should help stop the issue.</p>
<p>Step Two: Give The Mail Item Back To Your Carrier</p>
<p>If you are at home when your mail carrier delivers your items, you need to hand the envelope or parcel back to them. Make sure you explain that the addressee does not live at your address anymore. Of course, you need to write on it before you give it to the delivery person.</p>
<p>If you are not at home when your mail carrier typically delivers, you can put the pieces back into your mailbox. Make sure you erect the red flag when you do so. This signifies that there is something for the mail carrier to collect the next time they do their rounds.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>I have been told by postal officials that these rules apply only to first class mail or higher (such as express mail) and does not apply to &quot;standard&quot; (bulk) or third class (junk) mail. None of the sources say that, however</p>
<p>I have also been told by a postal employee tht mail addressed to 'occupant&quot; or &quot;our friends at {address}&quot; has reached its destination if it gets to the right address, and may safely be discarded.</p>
<h2>Conclusion</h2>
<p>The actions described in the question are criminal in the US, although perhaps not very likely to be prosecuted. I think they would also be criminal in many other countries. They are also profoundly anti-social, as they deprive others of potentially important mail, possibly causing them serious inconvenience or even loss, to save a trivial effort.</p>

<p>More generally, if you are required by law to do something and the consequence of not doing it is a fine or imprisonment, and if you only want to do the things that you freely choose to do therefore do things forbidden by criminal law, it is <em>by definition</em> a crime (not all government prohibitions are crimes, you have to look at the actual law, but I assume you are not distinguishing between crimes and non-criminal civil penalties). It is not a crime in the US to disagree with a given law, and there are plenty of political remedies available, i.e. work to repeal the law.</p>
<p>The practical solution is to write &quot;Return to Sender&quot;  and &quot;No longer at this address&quot; on the envelope, black out any bar codes, and put it in a mailbox. Even using psychokinetic powers to deal with unwanted mail requires mental effort, so your desire for an effort-free solution is doomed. My proposal improves the chances of you not getting someone else's junk mail.</p>
<p>The specific law regarding other people's mail is
<a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1702" rel="nofollow noreferrer">18 USC 1702</a></p>
<blockquote>
<p>Whoever takes any letter, postal card, or package out of any post
office or any authorized depository for mail matter, or from any
letter or mail carrier, or which has been in any post office or
authorized depository, or in the custody of any letter or mail
carrier, before it has been delivered to the person to whom it was
directed, with design to obstruct the correspondence, or to pry into
the business or secrets of another, or opens, secretes, embezzles, or
destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not
more than five years, or both</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Note that the requirement is in terms of delivery to the addressee, not to the address. That is how you know it is a crime.</p>
<p><a href="https://casetext.com/case/maxwell-v-united-states-7" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Maxwell v. US</a>, 235 F.2d 930 is one case involving conviction under this statute. In this case, defendant lives in an apartment with a common mailbox, where by custom the first person to open the mailbox would take all the mail and put on a table inside the building. In this case, someone else removed the mail and put it on the table (which is not an authorized mail depository), and defendant then took the letter from the table (there was a check in it): defendant was charged with violating §1702. Defendant argued that since the table is not a mailbox, there is no crime. The court did not accept that argument, instead saying</p>
<blockquote>
<p>It seems to us, however, that the plain language of the statute
discloses a clear intent on the part of Congress to extend federal
protection over mail matter from the time it enters the mails until it
reaches the addressee or his authorized agent. We can think of no
sound reason for not giving to the statute the full meaning which its
language imports or for denying to Congress the power to protect a
letter from theft from the time it is mailed until it has actually
been received by the person to whom it is addressed. Certainly the
stealing of undelivered United States mail is a matter of national
concern.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>and with reference to a prior case, states that</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Here, the stolen letter did not reach the manual possession of the
person to whom it was addressed, but was an undelivered letter over
which Section 1702, we think, extended its protection, even though the
letter was not, at the time it was stolen, in an authorized depository
for mail matter.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>In other words, consideration of &quot;congressional intent&quot; broadens the scope of the law. One tricky &quot;solution&quot; to your problem would be to leave the mail on a table in your house, and periodically allow someone to throw the pile away. That person would not have taken the letter from an authorized depository but will have destroyed it. But that only goes to a narrow interpretation of the letter of the law: as you can can see from Maxwell, the judicially-determined intent of Congress can also be brought to bear.</p>
<p><a href="https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-murry" rel="nofollow noreferrer">US v. Murry</a>, 588 F.2d 641 cites this finding in finding that purloining a check from a re-mailing service (where there is no &quot;authorized depository&quot;) is still a violation of §1702, see also <a href="https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-murray-9" rel="nofollow noreferrer">US v. Murray</a>, 306 F. Supp. 833 (coincidence of names). See esp. <a href="https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-ashford-4?PHONE_NUMBER_GROUP=P&amp;sort=relevance&amp;resultsNav=false&amp;q=" rel="nofollow noreferrer">US v. Ashford</a>, 530 F.2d 792:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>While there is authority to the effect that the protection extended by
§ 1702 ends when a piece of mail matter passes legitimately out of the
control and beyond the responsibility of what is now the United States
Postal Service, later and more authoritative cases establish that <em>the
statute is applicable until the mailed material is physically
delivered to the person to whom it is directed or to his authorized
agent</em>, and this court is committed to that view. Ross v. United
States, 374 F.2d 97, 103 (8th Cir. 1967); Maxwell v. United States,
235 F.2d 930 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 352 U.S. 943, 77 S.Ct. 266, 1
L.Ed.2d 239 (1956). See also United States v. Brown, 425 F.2d 1172
(9th Cir. 1970); United States v. Wade, 364 F.2d 931 (6th Cir. 1966).</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Clearly, then, destroying the letter is not a legal option. I have not found any case law regarding the possibility of leaving the letter on a table inside your house until an authorized agent or the USPS comes by to pick it up (viz. a positive duty to return the mis-delivered letter)</p>

criminal-law mail