The Growing Threat of Mail Theft: Why Prosecution Alone Isn’t Enough
Mail theft is more than just an inconvenience. It’s a serious crime that often leads to identity theft, financial fraud, and a host of other damaging consequences. Yet, despite the increasing number of mail theft cases, the public remains largely unaware of the severity of this issue. While federal prosecutors are doing their best to prosecute offenders and secure convictions, we have to face a hard truth: prosecution without proactive law enforcement won’t stop these crimes.
Prosecution Alone Can’t Fix the Problem
Recently, the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Western District of North Carolina issued a press release detailing several successful mail theft prosecutions. These cases involved everything from stolen cell phones and checks to fraudulent schemes worth hundreds of thousands of dollars. However, the press release highlights a critical flaw in the system—prosecutors are left to clean up the mess after the crime has already been committed. This reactive approach isn’t enough to deter thieves.
Prosecution stops offenders from reoffending, but it doesn’t stop them from committing the crime in the first place. The real problem is a lack of visible law enforcement on the streets, particularly in urban areas where most of these crimes are happening. If there’s little chance of getting caught in the act, why would criminals stop?
Strengthening Mail Security Isn’t a Complete Solution
The U.S. Postal Service has implemented stronger physical security measures, such as reinforcing blue drop boxes to prevent “mail fishing.” While this is an important step, it’s not enough. Criminals are simply adapting. We’ve seen a troubling escalation from mail fishing to armed robberies of mail carriers. Criminal gangs have recognized the high value of the mail and are willing to use force to get it.
The data shows that these robberies are happening in urban areas where a targeted, uniformed police presence could make a real difference. Unfortunately, postal police officers are restricted from patrolling in these high-crime areas. Instead, we’re relying on a reactive system—by the time the crime is investigated, the damage is done.
The Role of Postal Police: A Missed Opportunity
As I discussed with Frank Albergo, the President of the Postal Police Officers Association, restricting postal police officers from patrolling high-crime areas is a significant missed opportunity. The USPS has the ability to place officers in areas where they could deter these crimes before they happen. Yet, the current system treats these officers as an afterthought, focusing on investigations after the fact instead of preventing crimes in real-time.
The postal police could be a first line of defense, especially in urban areas. Their presence could deter criminals who are now increasingly targeting mail carriers with armed force. The reality is simple: the only effective deterrent to an armed criminal is an armed officer.
Investigating Crime is Becoming Harder
To make matters worse, recent rulings from federal district courts have set precedents against the use of geo-spatial investigatory warrants. This complicates the ability to track and investigate stolen mail. Even if law enforcement identifies stolen mail, they are left waiting for it to be used in a crime before they can act. Once again, this places us in a reactive situation—one where the crime has already been committed, and the damage has already been done.
A Call for Proactive Solutions
The solution to mail theft isn’t just stronger prosecution or beefing up physical security measures. It’s about being proactive and preventing these crimes before they occur. That means allowing postal police officers to patrol high-crime areas, increasing the visibility of law enforcement, and sending a message to criminals that they will get caught—not just after the fact, but in the act.
By investing in proactive law enforcement, we can stop mail theft in its tracks and protect the integrity of our postal system. The public deserves to feel safe, and the only way to achieve that is through real, on-the-ground deterrence, not just reactive investigations.