# United States v. Clark Eugene Heffner

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · January 6, 1970 · 420 F.2d 809

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9455203

## Case

- **Full name:** UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Clark Eugene HEFFNER, Appellant
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** January 6, 1970
- **Citations:** 420 F.2d 809
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Bryan
- **Judges:** Bryan, Winter, Craven
- **Cited by:** 220 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9455203

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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”
- discussing cases “consistent with the [Accardi] doctrine’s purpose to prevent the arbitrariness which is inherently characteristic of an agency’s violation of its own procedures.”

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9455203. Public record. Not legal advice.