Is it a crime to take my own package from a delivery truck before it has reached my home? Not that I would ever do this, but I'm curious: if I were to go into a stopped delivery truck and remove from it an item that is addressed to me, would this be a crime? If so what crime would it be? It seems to me that I would not be stealing anything since it's my own property that I'm taking. I might even have a reason to suspect that if I did not take the package from the truck, then the driver would leave it sitting out in the open where it would likely be stolen (or that the driver himself might steal it), in which case I'd actually be preventing a crime by taking it from the truck directly. I don't think this would be burglary either, since that would tend to require that I was breaking into a restricted area with the intent to commit a crime. Especially if the delivery truck had no doors or I acted while they'd been left open, then I wouldn't even be &quot;breaking and entering.&quot; I can't see this as being &quot;trespass&quot; if the truck was on a public street, unless trespass applies to the interior of vehicles. Even then, as long as I'd leave before anyone noticed me, I could just say I only went in to retrieve what's mine and prevent it from being damaged or stolen. So I'm guessing there must be some kind of arcane laws that only the US Postal Marshalls deal with. Yes, there are special guys called &quot;US Postal Marshalls,&quot; who investigate mail-related crimes. So I'm curious what crime this would be? Note: I did review this post about &quot;stealing your own property back&quot; but it does not really seem to apply here.
Yes, it's illegal You are missing something terribly important: The package might not be your property [yet]. In any way, it is not in your possession, while it is in the hands of the postal service! The contents of the package started fully owned by the sender and were entrusted to the postal service to deliver it. This entrustment is (contractually) defined as the time it is handed to the postal service, but the postal service does not gain any ownership. They do however have insurance on the parcel (to some degree), as they are liable for the loss of it. In many cases, the transfer of ownership happens upon delivery (for example, in the UK), so that you can't even be sure you own the contents while the box is still on the truck. At least in the eye of many postal services I know, it is the basic presumption, that they hold the item as entrusted. So to be on the safe side, it's best to presume that the package only becomes your package the moment you sign for the receipt of the package or it is dropped into your mailbox or at your dedicated dropoff point (you can specify that with many postal carriers btw). Otherwise, your actions might interfere with the contract of the mail service [to bring it to your door] and might incur liability upon them as their insurance presumes the parcel was lost and it has to be replaced. By the way, it is customary that any message of the parcel is damaged go to the sender, not the receiver so that in the case of commercial mail they can send/fund a replacement, as the sender needs to ensure that a non-defect item is delivered under their own contract with the recipient. Criminal lawsuits But, you want to know which specific law you'd be sued under 18 USC §1708 (2) not only for taking the box, but also for taking the item from the box (emphasis mine)! Whoever steals, takes, or abstracts, or by fraud or deception obtains, or attempts so to obtain, from or out of any mail, post office, or station thereof, letter box, mail receptacle, or any mail route or other authorized depository for mail matter, or from a letter or mail carrier, any letter, postal card, package, bag, or mail, or abstracts or removes from any such letter, package, bag, or mail, any article or thing contained therein, or secretes, embezzles, or destroys any such letter, postal card, package, bag, or mail, or any article or thing contained therein [...] Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. The act of taking is relevant. It is irrelevant that you would receive the parcel later. You take it from the car on the delivery route. You also do trespass under whatever jurisdiction applies where the car is parked. For example, Criminal Trespass on Indian country is defined under 25.CFR § 11.411 (b). The rules in other jurisdictions are very similar: you are not allowed to enter the car, as it is clearly off-limits to the general public. The car is btw. supposed to be closed to prevent such, so you have to actually break property of the postal service (which is an extra charge to just the normal B&amp;E). (b) A person commits an offense if, knowing that he or she is not licensed or privileged to do so, he or she enters or remains in any place as to which notice against trespass is given by: (3) Fencing or other enclosure manifestly designed to exclude intruders. A car door, even if not locked and left ajar, is an enclosure manifestly designed to exclude intruders, and the inside of a car is &quot;any place&quot;. So, in the correct jurisdiction, this statute of criminal trespass does apply. And as pointed out above, taking the mail without the driver knowing is illegal. In some fashion, taking your own mail is also a strange case of obstructing the correspondence, which specifically calls out that the parcel has to be given by the mailman to the recipient (emphasis mine). 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. If it is discovered by the driver while still on route, they will have to call the base and investigate the missing parcel, which takes time from the delivery, so might constitute retarding the passage of mail. If you break the lock to the car, you'd be charged as Injury to mail bags: Whoever tears, cuts, or otherwise injures any mail bag, pouch, or other thing used or designed for use in the conveyance of the mail, or draws or breaks any staple or loosens any part of any lock, chain, or strap attached thereto, with intent to rob or steal any such mail, or to render the same insecure, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both. A Postal car, especially with a lock on the door, is such a device. And if you somehow had the key to the car, you'd break 18 USC § 1704 instead. Plus, your taking does possibly incur monetary damages to the postal carrier, so civil charges for that money and expenses in investigating would also accrue against the taking person. civil lawsuits? If you'd take the parcel, you make the postal driver accountable for the loss of the parcel and the worth of the package, as the internal system of the postal service does recognize that they did not deliver the parcel, did not scan it out at the home base, but they did scan it onto their route. So unless they can point the finger at you or a known thief, they might need to admit that they did not lock the car or committed some other misconduct that allowed someone to steal the parcel. This can lead to the financial loss of the delivery driver or them being fired. Should the mail carrier or the postal service discover it was you, the mail carrier can now sue you for the injury the lost parcel meant to them as you interfered with their work contract. The tort is Tortious interference. Then, the mail service can sue you for intentionally interfering with the delivery contract the service had with the one ordering the delivery done: they were required to bring the parcel to the target and got paid for that. Only your action of taking did prevent this. Would you not have taken the parcel, they would have delivered, so you interfered with their contract. Life Advice: Approach the driver, get out a photo-ID (Drivers license, passport, ID-card etc) and ask them something akin to this &quot;The website told me you might have a parcel for me. Can you look? I am this person, and this ID proves I live at the target address, as indicated on this ID.&quot; With those credentials in hand, the postal driver can check and give it to you but isn't technically obligated to. But as it often means they can save a few valuable minutes getting to your house, they might, especially if you know your mail carrier and are friendly. On the other hand, it's extremely unlikely for letter mail to be given this way, as searching for a parcel on a truck is much easier than looking for the letter mails in the bags.
There is no law against lying in these circumstances. In fact, for a very modest sum, security companies sell dummy CCTV cameras to make this lie more convincing. However, trespass only happens if people have been warned so this works for literate people who speak English and see the sign. That leaves a very large group of people who would not be trespassing even with the sign. A further problem with a sign on the house is that people have no idea how far away they have to get in order to stop trespassing. In addition, legitimate visitors (uninvited or not) are not trespassers. It seems that people are coming onto your property because they are thirsty. A better way to deal with this is go to your local hardware store and replace the tap with a vandal proof tap that has a removable head. Keep that inside and put a sign next to the tap saying "Refrigerated Water $2 - knock on front door".
Who in the fraternity would be prosecuted if this became an issue? A lot of people could be held liable for this, including people who are not even in the fraternity. Anyone who has knowledge of the machine or the fact that it was possible for minors to access alcohol through it could technically be held liable if a prosecutor wanted to make that case. Presumably the building is owned by someone else and just leased out to fraternity members, and they very well could be held liable for sale to minors also. Would the machine be safer if it just accepted cash (so that no electronic paper trail was created), with a big warning sign WINK WINK that anyone under the age of 21 was strictly prohibited from purchasing from it? No. Payment method is irrelevant here. There are a number of states that legally allow vending machines to sell alcohol, but vendors are required to verify the age of any person accessing them and ensure that those cards aren't being used by people not authorized. What you describe is an extremely relaxed environment where admittedly no one is attempting to verify identities. The "accepting cash" scenario is no different than a liquor store selling alcohol to anyone that comes in just because they're willing to pay with cash instead of a credit card. Sales to minors laws are not "as long as you warn them, you're safe" laws. They require vendors to actively check IDs and ensure that alcohol is not landing in the hands of minors. Accepting cash just to erase the evidence doesn't meet that burden. There are a lot of legal troubles with the situation that could get a lot of people charged with multiple offenses. That you have underage fraternity members living there suggests you should not have alcohol readily accessible in the house at all, as most state laws expressly forbid providing access to alcohol, not just serving or selling. Them being there provides access to it, even if it's just a case in the fridge with a note on it. Not to mention, you technically cannot sell alcohol, as I highly doubt your fraternity has a liquor license to be able to do so. There's a big difference between asking everyone to pitch in to buy the case versus actively selling individual cans through a vending machine. The vending machine itself is violating liquor laws in your state merely by existing.
Utah has a lot of public parks, so to point in the right direction, I will assume that this is a public park in Salt Lake City, it's just a plain old grassy field, and it's not during a special event. A person is suspected of some crime like selling drugs, not arrested, but told by a police officer to go away and never come back. This is way beyond the power of the police. After due legal process, a proven (not just suspected) public menace could be ordered by the court to stay away from the park. A police officer can, of course, order a person to leave a park when they violate a park rule, in fact rule number 1 is "It is unlawful for any person to do or to allow or permit any of the acts prohibited by this chapter in any park in Salt Lake City", so the police cannot legally turn a blind eye to rule violations. Violation of park rules is an infraction which can earn you a ticket of up to $299. However, the officer can tell you to go away, rather than giving you a ticket or arresting you. But an police order cannot issue a unilateral restraining order. Apart from city laws, there are general state laws regarding trespass and destruction of property. The state criminal trespass law says that A person is guilty of criminal trespass if...knowing the person's... entry or presence is unlawful, the person enters or remains on to which notice against entering is given by...personal communication to the person by the owner or someone with apparent authority to act for the owner In this case, the owner is the city, and the officer has apparent authority to act for that owner. In the case of private property, the owner or his agent has very broad authority to give notice requiring you to leave (e.g. if you don't like their politics or their shirt); but in the case of public property, the government has more narrowly circumscribed authority to kick you out.
First off, I wouldn't assume that this is always a prank. This is a rather infamous tactic used by bike thieves. These thieves add a second lock to "discourage" the owner from taking their bicycle, wait a few days, and then remove both locks, thus stealing your bike. Don't wait, get your bike out right away. As long as this is your own bike, you don't have much to worry about. It would generally be helpful to call the police, so that they might make a note of it. They might not be able to help you cut the lock, but they will make a note of the incident. It might also be a good idea to register your bike. Getting into the law part... If you were to ever be charged with a property-related offence (which I doubt would happen), you probably wouldn't be able to be found guilty. In Canada, the relevant section would be &sect;35 of the Criminal Code. To summarize that, it basically means that you can't be guilty of an offence if you believe that another person is about to render your bike inoperative (through addition of the second lock), and that your act that constituted the offence would be preventing or stopping that. Don't forget, the bike has to be yours as well.
None, if the intention is merely trespassing, unlike burglary which requires intent to steal, commit criminal damage, or inflict grevious bodily harm or if the building is a protected site - neither of which isn't evident from the question. Note, for both offences, the actus reus is entry - there is no requirement for any form of &quot;breaking&quot; Further to ohwilleke's comment, unless the lock is damaged or destroyed etc, then there is no offence of criminal damage
Technically, yes: 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. That said, just because it's technically a felony punishable by up to 3 years in federal prison, doesn't mean you'll actually be punished that way. The Department of Justice's Criminal Resource Manual has a section on misdemeanor offenses that apply to postal crime: Among the misdemeanor dispositions available are: 18 U.S.C. § 1701 (obstruction of mails generally); 18 U.S.C. § 1703(b) (opening,destroying, or detaining mail without authority); 18 U.S.C. § 1707 (theft of property used by postal service); and 18 U.S.C. § 1711 (misappropriation of postal funds). When the charge might best lie under 18 U.S.C. § 1705 (destruction of letter boxes or mail) or 18 U.S.C. § 1706 (injury to mail bags) and in other appropriate circumstances, an applicable misdemeanor may be found in 18 U.S.C. § 641 (theft of government property); or 18 U.S.C. § 1361 (destruction of government property). That suggests (at least to me) that federal prosecutors are supposed to at least consider misdemeanor instead of felony charges for minor cases of mailbox destruction. Under normal circumstances, destruction of federal property only becomes a felony if the damage (or attempted damage) is more than $1,000. This is a pretty good example of how US laws are written with prosecutorial discretion in mind. In other systems, the law about destruction of mail or mailboxes would lay out when it's a serious crime and when it's minor. In the US, it's always considered a serious crime because the assumption is that prosecutors won't charge it in minor cases (in fact, official guidance to prosecutors lays out ways they can charge it without charging the felony). It's also possible to be prosecuted at the state level for this, and if you're actually a juvenile that's much more likely than federal prosecution. The feds don't really like handling juvenile cases; they normally leave those up to the states unless there's some good reason not to. Even if you're an adult, the feds may well leave the issue up to the state for prosecution. At the state level, the threshold for felony vs. misdemeanor vandalism would depend on the state. Whether you're prosecuted at the state or federal levels, there's a decent chance you wind up with at least a misdemeanor on your record. Vandalism is illegal, after all.
Under U.S. law, double jeopardy prevents you from being charged with the same charge twice, and also from being charged with any offense which is a lesser included offense of the charged offense, or a charge so substantially similar that for constitutional purposes it amounts to the same crime. Basically, the test is whether a prior acquittal would be inconsistent with a new criminal charge. For example, even though there is an additional element of the crime of murdering a postal officer to the crime of murdering someone on federal property, double jeopardy would probably bar a retrial of a murder on federal property case simply because the victim happened to be a postal worker and that element wasn't charged in the original indictment. This is because the acquittal of the first murder charge would almost always imply a jury determination that a murder didn't take place which would be inconsistent with a murder of a postal worker charge. On the other hand, a trial on a murder charge would probably not bar, for example, a trial on a burglary charge (which at common law involved trespassing with an intent to commit a crime), even if the burglary charge arose from the same conduct. This is because an acquittal on a murder charge isn't necessarily inconsistent with the existence of a trespass, or with the intent to commit some crime other than the murder for which the defendant was acquitted. But the exact way that the line gets draw is tricky and while what I have described is a good general summary of the cases interpreting the double jeopardy clause, it isn't a perfect one. This issue has been litigated many, many tines over the years, so there are a lot of cases that are squarely on point addressing specific fact patterns in precedents that are binding case law that are not always a perfect fit to the general principles. In these circumstances, the binding case law is going to control, at least until a court with appellate authority over the court whose case established the precedent in question decided to overrule a prior precedent from the lower court, or in the case of U.S. Supreme Court precedents, until the U.S. Supreme Court revisits one of its own prior precedents as wrong decided or wrongly interpreted, which happens now and then, although it is a rare event.