collecting cases and noting that, at that time, the doctrine had been applied to a Department of Interior “Order,” the Army’s “Weekly Bulletin 42,” an FCC “rule” which had not been formally promulgated but which the court found had been the FCC’s “usual practice,” FCC “Standards,” and a Department of Defense “Directive”
How later courts described this case
- collecting cases and noting that, at that time, the doctrine had been applied to a Department of Interior “Order,” the Army’s “Weekly Bulletin 42,” an FCC “rule” which had not been formally promulgated but which the court found had been the FCC’s “usual practice,” FCC “Standards,” and a Department of Defense “Directive”
- explaining that the purpose of the Accardi doctrine is to “prevent the arbitrariness which is inherently characteristic of an agency’s violation of its own procedures”
- holding that “an agency of the government must scrupulously observe rules, regulations or procedures which it has established”
- noting the possibility that, if the Miranda-like warnings properly had been provided, the “defendant, alerted to the prosecutorial purpose of the interview, would have requested counsel”
Written by the judges who cited it.
Distinguished
Distinguished by Onan Corp. v. United States, 19 Cl. Ct. 678 (1990)
Heffner and Accardi, however, are distinguishable from this case.
Distinguished by Searle v. Regents of University of California, 23 Cal. App. 3d 448 (1972)
420 F.2d 809) are readily distinguishable (see
The opinion
ALBERT V. BRYAN, Circuit Judge,
(dissenting):
I cannot concur in the opinion of the majority because the ground for the reversal is, in my view, entirely unsound in the circumstances of this case. It was not even suggested in brief or oral argument. On the facts here .1 do not think the authorities cited require that the judgment of the District Court be overturned.
I would simply add these observations. In my judgment the prosecution was not only justified but compelled. There was a flouting of the law that gave the Government no choice, unless it was to allow every taxpayer the same privilege. The Internal Revenue agents extended him every possible consideration. His statements to them were made without importunity by word, surroundings or otherwise. The District Judge with apprehension and caution inquired into the appellant’s mental condition. Psychiat-rical scrutiny was pursued, and evidence on this concern was finely sieved by the judge before concluding that the appellant was fully competent in mind.
For all of these reasons I feel I must record my dissent.