DOCSLIB.ORG

Search & Seizure Law in Missouri

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Search & Seizure Law in Missouri Search & Seizure Law in Missouri State & Federal Law H. Morley Swingle Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Boone County, Missouri 705 E. Walnut Street Columbia, MO 65201 January 2020 Edition Contents Part One - Introduction I. Constitutional Authority .................................................................................................. 10 II. Checklist for Busy Practitioner ..................................................................................... 10 III. Fourth Amendment Applicability Examples ................................................................... 11 1. Non-coverage of Place (Other Country)..................................... 11 2. Open Fields vs. Curtilage) ..................................................................... 11 3. Thermal Imaging Device (Heat Leaving Premises; Bodies Moving Inside Home) ............................................................... 13 4. Abandoned Property ................................................................................ 13 5. Information in Law Enforcement Database .............................................. 15 6. Government v. Private Action .................................................................. 15 7. No Expectation of Privacy - Key in Lock ................................................ 17 8. Information From Utility & Phone Companies ......................................... 17 Use of Electricity ............................................................................. 17 Cell Tower Site Location Information .............................................. 17 9. Grand Jury Subpoenas or Prosecutor’s Investigative Subpoenas ......................................................................... 18 10. Non-coverage of Rights of this Defendant (Standing) ............... 22 Two-Part Test ............................................................................................... 22 (1) Seizure of Person ................................................................................... 22 (2) Search of Person ................................................................................... 22 (3) Defendant’s Own House ........................................................................ 23 (4) Defendant’s Own Car ............................................................................ 23 (5) Passenger in Car ................................................................................... 23 (6) Driver of Someone Else’s Car Glove Compartment ............................................................................ 25 (7) Driver of Stolen Car ............................................................................... 26 (8) Driver of Car, Owner is Passenger ........................................................ 27 (9) Driver of Rental Car of Someone Else .................................................. 27 (10) Overnight Guest in House .................................................................... 28 (11) Guest in House for Drug Deal .............................................................. 29 (12) Trespasser in House ............................................................................ 29 (13) Motel Guest Past Check-Out Time ...................................................... 29 (14) Laundry Room in Common Area of Apartment Complex ..................... 29 (15) Abandoned Property in Public Place .................................................... 30 (16) Someone Else’s Purse ......................................................................... 30 (17) Texts in Someone Else’s Phone .......................................................... 30 (18) Third Party (Google/Craigslist) Records of Defendant’s E-mail to Stranger ......................................................................................... 31 IV. If the 4th Amendment Applies, Pass to Question Two – Has It Been Violated ............................................................................................. 31 V. Two Types of Searches ................................................................................................ 32 With Warrants .......................................................................................................... 32 Without Warrants ..................................................................................................... 33 Why Get Warrant in First Place? ............................................................................ 32 Burden of Proof ....................................................................................................... 33 VI. Exceptions To Warrant Requirement – At Least 10 Categories .................................. 33 Part Two - Searches With Warrants I. Searches Without Warrants are Unreasonable ................................................... 35 II. Statutory Mechanics ........................................................................................... 35 1. Arrest Warrant Carries Limited Authority to Search For Suspect in His Home (Payton-Steagald Rule) ............................. ..36 III. Particular Issues .............................................................................................. 39 1. Probable Cause ....................................................................................... 39 2. Anonymous Calls & Corroboration ......................................................... 40 3. Drug Cases - Specify Time Drug Seen.................................................. 42 4. Staleness ................................................................................................ 42 5. Search of Suspect’s Home Not Because Contraband Seen There, But Because of Probable Cause He Committed the Crime and This is His Home ......................................... 43 6. Anticipatory Search Warrants/ Prospective Probable Cause ................. 43 7. Confidentiality of Informant or Surveillance Location .............................. 44 7. Oath or Affirmation ................................................................................. 44 9. Search Warrants for Blood & Urine or Hospital BAC Records............... 46 10. Surgical Invasions ................................................................................. 48 11. X-Rays, Pumping Stomach or Inducing Vomiting .................................. 50 12. Removing Baggie of Drugs From Rectum .............................................51 13. Removing Item From Mouth .................................................................. 52 14. Knock & Announce Requirement & Exceptions .................................... 53 15. Prior Refusal of Judge to Issue Warrant ............................................... 56 16. Particularity Requirement - Places to be Searched .............................. 57 17. Particularity Requirement - Things to be Seized .................................. 58 18. Timeliness of Execution ........................................................................ 59 19. Receipt, Return & Inventory Requirements ............................................61 20. Nighttime Searches .............................................................................. 62 21. Persons on Premises - Detention, Search or Arrest…….…. ................ 63 Detention. ... ..............……..................................................................63 Occupants v. Visitors..........................................................................64 Handcuffs. .. ..............……..................................................................65 Preventing Property Owner From Entry ............................................ 65 Full Searches of Persons on or Near Premises ................................ 65 Searches of Visitors’ Purses and Bags ............................................. 66 22. Extent of Search: Scope - General Law .............................................. 68 23. Extent of Search: Intensity ................................................................... 70 Closed Containers ............................................................................. 70 Search After Object Found ................................................................. 71 Damage to Property ........................................................................... 71 24. Seizure of Evidence .............................................................................. 71 25. Strip or Body Cavity Searches ............................................................. 72 26. Exclusionary Rule & Good Faith Exception ......................................... 74 27. 4 Exceptions to Good Faith Exception ................................................. 75 1. False Information in Affidavit ....................................................... 76 2. Judge Abandons Judicial Role .................................................... 77 3. Warrant Clearly Lacks Probable Cause ...................................... 77 4. Warrant Facially Deficient............................................................ 79 28. Good Faith Generally Does Not Apply to Warrantless Searches ......... 80 1. Exception for Warrantless Administrative Search Per Unconstitutional Statute ........................................... 80 2. Exception for Warrantless Stop on Court Computer Clerk Error ............................................................ 80 3. Exception for Negligence of Police Regarding Recalled Warrant ................................................................................. 80 4. Exception For Reliance on Binding
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Probable Cause for Arrest in Indiana: a Prosecutor Hoist with His Own Kinnaird
    Indiana Law Journal Volume 45 Issue 1 Article 3 Fall 1969 Probable Cause for Arrest in Indiana: A Prosecutor Hoist With His Own Kinnaird F. Thomas Schornhorst Indiana University Maurer School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/ilj Part of the Criminal Law Commons, and the Evidence Commons Recommended Citation Schornhorst, F. Thomas (1969) "Probable Cause for Arrest in Indiana: A Prosecutor Hoist With His Own Kinnaird," Indiana Law Journal: Vol. 45 : Iss. 1 , Article 3. Available at: https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/ilj/vol45/iss1/3 This Comment is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School Journals at Digital Repository @ Maurer Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Indiana Law Journal by an authorized editor of Digital Repository @ Maurer Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. COMMENTS PROBABLE CAUSE FOR ARREST IN INDIANA: A PROSECUTOR HOIST WITH HIS OWN KINNAIRD F. THOMAS SCHORNHORSTt For'tis the sport to have the enginer Hoist with his own petar.... HAmtLET, ACT III, SCENE IV A judicial decision that an arrest warrant must be supported by an affidavit alleging facts and circumstances sufficient to justify a magist- rate's finding of probable cause in order to make lawful an arrest and incidental search based on that warrant would not seem worthy of law journal commentary in 1969. One would think that this issue had been settled in the stormy period following Mapp v. Ohio" in Ker v. Cali- fornia,' Beck v. Ohio,' Wong Sun v. United States4 and Aguilar v.
    [Show full text]
  • Download Chapter (PDF)
    CONTENTS Introduction by Fawn Μ. Brodie Note on the Text ROUTE FROM LIVERPOOL το GREAT SALT LAKE VALLEY Preface [Chapters I-IX by Linforth] Chapter I. Commencement of the Latter-day Saints' Emigration—History until the Suspension in 1846 Chapter II. Memorial to the Queen—Re-opening of the Emigration—History until 1851 Chapter III. History of the Perpetual Emigrating Fund—Act of Incorporation by the General Assembly of Deseret Chapter IV. History of the Emigration from 1851 to 1852—Contemplated Routes via the Isthmus of Panama and Cape Horn Chapter V. History of the Emigration from 1852 to April, 1854—Extensive Operations of the Perpetual Emigrating Fund Company vi CONTENTS Chapter VI. Foreign Emigration passing through Liverpool 38 Chapter VII. Statistics of the Latter-day Saints' Emigration from the British Isles 40 Chapter VIII. Mode of conducting the Emigration 49 Chapter IX. Instructions to Emigrants 54 [Chapters X-XXI by Piercy] Chapter X. Departure from Liverpool—San Domingo—Cuba—The Gulf of Mexico—The Mississippi River—The Balize—Arrival at New Orleans—Attempts of "Sharpers" to board the Ship and pilfer from the Emigrants 62 Chapter XI. Louisiana—The City of New Orleans—Disembarkation 71 Chapter XII. Departure from New Orleans—Steam-Boats—Negro-Slavery— Carrollton—The Face of the Country—-Baton Rouge—Red River —Mississippi—Unwholesomeness of the waters of the Mississippi —Danger in procuring Water from the Stream—Washing away of the Banks of the River—Snags—Landing at Natchez at night —Beautiful effect caused by reflection on the Water of the Light from the Steamboat Windows—^American Taverns and Hospi- tality—Rapidity at Meals—American Cooking Stoves and Wash- ing Boards—Old Fort Rosalie—An Amateur Artist 73 Chapter XIII.
    [Show full text]
  • Fourth Amendment--Requiring Probable Cause for Searches and Seizures Under the Plain View Doctrine Elsie Romero
    Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Volume 78 Article 3 Issue 4 Winter Winter 1988 Fourth Amendment--Requiring Probable Cause for Searches and Seizures under the Plain View Doctrine Elsie Romero Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/jclc Part of the Criminal Law Commons, Criminology Commons, and the Criminology and Criminal Justice Commons Recommended Citation Elsie Romero, Fourth Amendment--Requiring Probable Cause for Searches and Seizures under the Plain View Doctrine, 78 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 763 (1987-1988) This Supreme Court Review is brought to you for free and open access by Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology by an authorized editor of Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. 0091-4169/88/7804-763 THE JOURNAL OF CRIMINAL LAw & CRIMINOLOGY Vol. 78, No. 4 Copyright @ 1988 by Northwestern University, School of Law Printed in U.S.A. FOURTH AMENDMENT-REQUIRING PROBABLE CAUSE FOR SEARCHES AND SEIZURES UNDER THE PLAIN VIEW DOCTRINE Arizona v. Hicks, 107 S. Ct. 1149 (1987). I. INTRODUCTION The fourth amendment to the United States Constitution pro- tects individuals against arbitrary and unreasonable searches and seizures. 1 Fourth amendment protection has repeatedly been found to include a general requirement of a warrant based on probable cause for any search or seizure by a law enforcement agent.2 How- ever, there exist a limited number of "specifically established and
    [Show full text]
  • Cops Or Robbers? How Georgia's Defense of Habitation Statute Applies to No-Knock Raids by Police Dimitri Epstein
    Georgia State University Law Review Volume 26 Article 5 Issue 2 Winter 2009 March 2012 Cops or Robbers? How Georgia's Defense of Habitation Statute Applies to No-Knock Raids by Police Dimitri Epstein Follow this and additional works at: https://readingroom.law.gsu.edu/gsulr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Dimitri Epstein, Cops or Robbers? How Georgia's Defense of Habitation Statute Applies to No-Knock Raids by Police, 26 Ga. St. U. L. Rev. (2012). Available at: https://readingroom.law.gsu.edu/gsulr/vol26/iss2/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Publications at Reading Room. It has been accepted for inclusion in Georgia State University Law Review by an authorized editor of Reading Room. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Epstein: Cops or Robbers? How Georgia's Defense of Habitation Statute App COPS OR ROBBERS? HOW GEORGIA'S DEFENSE OF HABITATION STATUTE APPLIES TO NO­NO- KNOCK RAIDS BY POLICE Dimitri Epstein*Epstein * INTRODUCTION Late in the fall of 2006, the city of Atlanta exploded in outrage when Kathryn Johnston, a ninety-two-year old woman, died in a shoot-out with a police narcotics team.team.' 1 The police used a "no­"no- knock" search warrant to break into Johnston's home unannounced.22 Unfortunately for everyone involved, Ms. Johnston kept an old revolver for self defense-not a bad strategy in a neighborhood with a thriving drug trade and where another elderly woman was recently raped.33 Probably thinking she was being robbed, Johnston managed to fire once before the police overwhelmed her with a "volley of thirty-nine" shots, five or six of which proved fatal.fata1.44 The raid and its aftermath appalled the nation, especially when a federal investigation exposed the lies and corruption leading to the incident.
    [Show full text]
  • Fourth Amendment Litigation
    Still the American Frontier: Fourth Amendment Litigation Deja Vishny September 2012 United States Constitution: The Fourth Amendment 1 Wisconsin State Constitution Article 1 Sec. 11 The Exclusionary Rule The Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine Attenuation Inevitable Discovery Independent Source Other exceptions to the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine Applicability of the Fourth Amendment: The Expectation of Privacy Cars Sample list of areas the court has found to private and non-private. Deemed Non-Private: Standing & Overnight Guests Searches by Private Parties Requirement of Search Warrant Determination of probable cause Definition of the Home: Curtilage Permissible scope of search warrants Plain View Good Faith Knock and Announce Challenging Search Warrants Permissible warrantless entries and searches in homes and businesses Exception: Search Incident to Arrest Exception: Protective Sweep Exception: Plain View Exception: Exigent Circumstances : The Emergency Doctrine Exception: Exigent Circumstances: Hot Pursuit Exception: Imminent Destruction of Evidence Warrantless searches without entry Consent Searches Who may consent to entry and searches of the home Scope of consent Seizures of Persons: The Terry Doctrine Defining a Seizure Permissible Length of Temporary Seizures Permissible reasons for a Seizure: 2 Seizures bases on anonymous tips Seizures on Public Transportation Requests for Identification Roadblocks: Reasonable Suspicion: Frisk of Suspects Scope of Terry Frisk Seizures of Property Arrest Probable Cause for Arrest Warrantless
    [Show full text]
  • Level of Certainty Needed to Prove the Standard
    % certainty Curved Line represents Level of certainty needed to prove the standard needed toprove of certainty Level difficulty to prove or articulate 90+ % CONVICTION – Proof Beyond Criminal Case a Reasonable Doubt 75% Insanity defense / Clear & alibi / prove consent Convincing given voluntarily Evidence Needed to prevail in Preponderance 51% civil case – LIABLE of evidence Asset Forfeiture 35% Arrest / Search / Probable Indictment / Cause Pretrial hearing 20% Stop & Frisk Reasonable – must be Suspicion articulated Hunch – not able to Mere 0% articulate / Suspicion no stop Mere Suspicion – This term is used by the courts to refer to a hunch or intuition. We all experience this in everyday life but it is NOT enough “legally” to act on. It does not mean than an officer cannot observe the activity or person further without making contact. Mere suspicion cannot be articulated using any reasonably accepted facts or experiences. An officer may always make a consensual contact with a citizen without any justification. The officer will however have not justification to stop or hold a person under this situation. One might say something like, “There is just something about him that I don’t trust”. “I can’t quit put my finger on what it is about her.” “He looks out of place.” Reasonable Suspicion – Stop, Frisk for Weapons, *(New) Search of vehicle incident to arrest under Arizona V. Gant. The landmark case for reasonable suspicion is Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) This level of proof is the justification police officers use to stop a person under suspicious circumstances (e.g. a person peaking in a car window at 2:00am).
    [Show full text]
  • History of Navigation on the Yellowstone River
    University of Montana ScholarWorks at University of Montana Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers Graduate School 1950 History of navigation on the Yellowstone River John Gordon MacDonald The University of Montana Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Recommended Citation MacDonald, John Gordon, "History of navigation on the Yellowstone River" (1950). Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers. 2565. https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd/2565 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at ScholarWorks at University of Montana. It has been accepted for inclusion in Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at University of Montana. For more information, please contact [email protected]. HISTORY of NAVIGATION ON THE YELLOWoTGriE RIVER by John G, ^acUonald______ Ë.À., Jamestown College, 1937 Presented in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of Mas­ ter of Arts. Montana State University 1950 Approved: Q cxajJL 0. Chaiinmaban of Board of Examiners auaue ocnool UMI Number: EP36086 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. UMT Ois8<irtatk>n PuUishing UMI EP36086 Published by ProQuest LLC (2012). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author. Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.
    [Show full text]
  • Ohio State Troopers Association
    Table of Contents ARTICLE 1 - AGREEMENT ........................................................................... 1 ARTICLE 2 - EFFECT OF AGREEMENT .................................................... 1 ARTICLE 3 - CONFLICT AND AMENDMENT .......................................... 1 ARTICLE 4 - MANAGEMENT RIGHTS ...................................................... 2 ARTICLE 5 - UNION RECOGNITION AND SECURITY .......................... 2 5.01 Bargaining Unit ..................................................................................... 2 5.02 Resolution of Dispute ............................................................................ 2 5.03 Bargaining Unit Work ........................................................................... 3 ARTICLE 6 - NO STRIKE PROVISION ....................................................... 3 6.01 Union Prohibition .................................................................................. 3 6.02 Affirmative Duty ................................................................................... 3 6.03 Disciplinary Actions .............................................................................. 3 6.04 Employer Prohibition ............................................................................ 3 ARTICLE 7 - NON-DISCRIMINATION ........................................................ 3 ARTICLE 8 - OSTA TIME .............................................................................. 4 8.01 Union Delegate and Officer Leave ........................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Biopsychological Investigation of Hedonic Processes in Individuals Susceptible to Overeating: Role of Liking and Wanting in Trait Binge Eating
    - 1 - Biopsychological Investigation of Hedonic Processes in Individuals Susceptible to Overeating: Role of Liking and Wanting in Trait Binge Eating Michelle Dalton Submitted in accordance with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy The University of Leeds Institute of Psychological Sciences July 2013 - 2 - The candidate confirms that the work submitted is her own, except where work which has formed part of jointly authored publications has been included. The contribution of the candidate and the other authors to this work has been explicitly indicated below. The candidate confirms that appropriate credit has been given within the thesis where reference has been made to the work of others. Chapter 2 of this thesis was based in part on the jointly-authored publication: Dalton, M., King, N.A., & Finlayson, G., (2013) Appetite, Satiety and Food Reward in Obese Subjects: A Phenotypic Approach, Current Nutrition Reports, 1-9. Chapter 7 of this thesis was based in part on the jointly-authored publication: Dalton, M., Blundell, J. & Finlayson, G. (2013) Effect of BMI and binge eating on food reward and energy intake: further evidence for a binge eating subtype of obesity. Obesity Facts, 6; 348-359. Chapter 8 of this thesis was based in part on the jointly-authored publication: Dalton, M., Blundell, J. & Finlayson, G. (2013) Examination of obese binge-eating subtypes on reward, food choice and energy intake under laboratory and free-living conditions. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 757. The candidate confirms that her contribution was primarily intellectual and she took a primary role in the production of the substance and writing of each of the above.
    [Show full text]
  • Service Patrol Handbook
    FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION SERVICE PATROL HANDBOOK November 2008 NOTICE This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the department of transportation in the interest of information exchange. The United States Government assumes no liability for its contents or use thereof. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. The United States Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade and manufacturers’ names appear in this report only because they are considered essential to the object of the document. i Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No. FHWA-HOP-08-031 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date Service Patrol Handbook November 2008 6. Performing Organization Code 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. Nancy Houston, Craig Baldwin, Andrea Vann Easton, Steve Cyra, P.E., P.T.O.E., Marc Hustad, P.E., Katie Belmore, EIT 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) Booz Allen Hamilton HNTB Corporation 8283 Greensboro Drive 11414 West Park Place, Suite 300 McLean, Virginia 22102 Milwaukee, WI 53224 11. Contract or Grant No. 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered Federal Highway Administration, HOTO-1 Final Report U. S. Department of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE 14. Sponsoring Agency Code Washington, D. C. 20590 HOTO, FHWA 15. Supplementary Notes Paul Sullivan, FHWA Office of Operations, Office of Transportation Operations, Contracting Officer’s Technical Representative (COTR). Handbook development was performed under contract to Booz Allen Hamilton. 16. Abstract This Handbook provides an overview of the Full-Function Service Patrol (FFSP) and describes desired program characteristics from the viewpoint of an agency that is responsible for funding, managing, and operating the services.
    [Show full text]
  • The Barefoot Lawyers: Prosecuting Child Labour in the Supreme Court of India
    THE BAREFOOT LAWYERS: PROSECUTING CHILD LABOUR IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Ranjan K. Agarwal* I. INTRODUCTION On the eve of India’s independence from British rule, India’s first Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, issued a challenge to the constituent assembly: “We end today a period of ill fortune and India discovers herself again. The achievement we celebrate today is but a step, an opening of opportunity, to the greater triumphs and achievements that await us. Are we brave enough and wise enough to grasp this opportunity and accept the challenge of the future?”1 For the most part, this challenge has gone unmet in the fifty-seven years since India’s independence. In 1999, twenty-six percent of Indians lived below the poverty line; sixteen percent of the population was officially “destitute” in 1998.2 As of 1997, India’s literacy rate was fifty-two percent, amongst the lowest in the world.3 Indians respond that their country is the largest democracy in the world, and one of the few democracies in Asia. In the face of economic hardship, communal and religious strife, the horrors of partition and the legacy of colonialism, India has remained a democratic country. Even then, democracy has not achieved for India the position of influence in the world and the more widely shared prosperity that its citizens hoped for their country. Too many Indians are poor, hungry, illiterate and view their government with contempt. For example, Indian newspapers estimate that hundreds of suspected criminals stood for election in the 1997 municipal votes in Delhi and Mumbai.4 Transparency International, a German anti-corruption organization, ranks India amongst the most corrupt * B.A.
    [Show full text]
  • Address the Risk of Reprisals in Complaint Management
    GUIDE FOR INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTABILITY MECHANISMS ON MEASURES TO ADDRESS THE RISK OF REPRISALS IN COMPLAINT MANAGEMENT A Practical Toolkit Guide for Independent Accountability Mechanisms on Measures to Address the Risk of Reprisals in Complaint Management: A Practical Toolkit Copyright © 2019 Inter-American Development Bank. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons IGO 3.0 Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives (CC-IGO BY-NC-ND 3.0 IGO) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ igo/legalcode) and may be reproduced with attribution to the IDB and for any non- commercial purpose. No derivative work is allowed. Any dispute related to the use of the works of the IDB that cannot be settled amicably shall be submitted to arbitration pursuant to the UNCITRAL rules. The use of the IDB’s name for any purpose other than for attribution, and the use of IDB’s logo shall be subject to a separate written license agreement between the IDB and the user and is not authorized as part of this CC-IGO license. Note that link provided above includes additional terms and conditions of the license. The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Inter-American Development Bank, its Board of Directors, or the countries they represent. Author: Tove Holmström Commissioned by the Independent Consultation and Investigation Mechanism (IDBG) Editors: Anne Perrault (UNDP-SECU), Ana María Mondragón, Pedro León and Victoria Márquez Mees (IDBG-MICI) Design: Alejandro Scaff Cover photo: Pexels Back cover photo: MICI January 2019 Independent Consultation and Investigation Mechanism FOREWORD The idea of producing a toolkit that would assist independent accountability mechanisms (IAMs) address the risk of reprisals within the context of their complaint management process came as a result of discussions with members of the IAM Working Group on Retaliation.
    [Show full text]