All Advisory Opinions At-A-Glance

Any state may submit an informal written request to the Executive Director for assistance in interpreting the rules of this compact. The Executive Director may seek the assistance of legal counsel, the Executive Committee, or both, in interpreting the rules. The Executive Committee may authorize its standing committees to assist in interpreting the rules. Interpretations of the rules shall be issued in writing by the Executive Director or the Executive Committee and shall be circulated to all of the states. / Advisory Opinion Policy

Issued:
Requester:
At Issue:

Region Members Casting Votes: Does Rule 2.109(a)(3) require that a proposed rule or rule amendment which is voted on by the member states of a region for submission to the Interstate Commission office for referral to the Rules Committee must be adopted by a majority vote of Commissioners from that region and whether non-commissioners, such as deputy compact administrators, may cast votes for this purpose.

Finding:

No provisions of the compact, bylaws, or rules contemplates that a proposed rule or rule amendment may be officially voted upon at any point in the rulemaking process by anyone other than the duly appointed Commissioner of each state.

Issued:
Requester:
At Issue:

May a sending state continue to collect supervision fees on a case that is transferred to a receiving state which has no law authorizing the collection of supervision fees.

Finding:

The sending state is prohibited under this rule from imposing a supervision fee once the offender has been transferred under the Compact.

Issued:
Requester:
At Issue:

Shock probation released from prison.

Finding:

This rule provides that the exception available to offenders under provisions of Rule 3.103 (a)(1)(A) which allows a sending state to grant a travel permit to an offender who was living in the receiving state at the time of sentencing are not applicable to “offenders released to supervision from prison.”

Issued:
Requester:
At Issue:

Clarification of Rules 5.108 and 4.109-1.

Finding:

Each state should determine the extent to which authority is vested in parole and probation officers as well as other law enforcement and peace officers to effect such an arrest, including the need for a warrant. If application for issuance of an arrest warrant must be made to a judge, it may be helpful to point out that Article V, subsection (b) of the state statute enacting ICAOS provides that ICAOS rules have the force and effect of statutory law and are binding in the compacting states. Article IX further provides that the courts of each compacting state shall enforce the Compact and take all actions necessary and appropriate to effectuate the Compact’s purposes and intent.

Issued:
Requester:
At Issue:

Interpretation of “physical harm”.

Finding:

In summary, a person charged and adjudicated on a misdemeanor offense of assault would be subject to the compact pursuant to Rule 2.105(a)(1), assuming all other provisions of the compact and rules apply. The fact that the instrumentality of the harm was an automobile has no bearing on the determination of eligibility under Rule 2.105(a)(1). Each state establishes the elements of its own criminal laws. Rule 2.105(a)(1) addresses only the nature of the offense committed (“an offense in which a person has incurred direct or threatened physical or psychological harm”), not the particular instrumentality used in the commission of the offense. If the law of the sending state recognizes the use of an automobile as an element in an assault offense and the offender is so adjudicated, Rule 2.105(a)(1) applies.

Issued:
Requester:
At Issue:

Obligation of the sending state when the offender no longer meets requirements of Rule 3.101.

Finding:

Under the current rules there is no such retaking requirement which is provided either explicitly or by implication or reasonable inference. In fact, under Rules 5.101, 5.102, and 5.103 retaking by the sending state is “at its sole discretion” except for situations in which the offender has been charged with a subsequent criminal offense and completion of a term of incarceration for that conviction, or placement on probation; or upon a showing that the offender has committed three of more “significant violations” which establish a pattern of “noncompliance of the conditions of supervision.”

Issued:
Requester:
At Issue:

Clarification on Offenders being charged fee by sending state after transferred to receiving state.

Finding:

The fee imposed annually under Wisconsin law does not appear to be for the purpose of the supervision of such offenders by parole or probation officers and instead is for the purpose of defraying the cost of sex offender registration and victim notification, it does not appear to fit the criteria of a “supervision fee” and may be collected on Compact offenders. However, under ICAOS Rule 4.108 (a) Wisconsin is solely responsible for the collection of such an annual assessment. While there is no requirement that Michigan undertake to require payment of this fee by an offender, under Rule 4.108 (b), upon notice from Wisconsin that the offender is not complying with this financial obligation, Michigan must notify the offender that this is a violation of the conditions of supervision and must comply as well as providing the offender with the address to which payments are to be sent.

Issued:
Requester:
At Issue:

Can a receiving state make a determination that an offender is not in substantial compliance in the sending state, when the offender commits a crime in the receiving state during the period of investigation, or when the offender has an outstanding warrant in the receiving state?

Finding:

The sending state determines if an offender is in “Substantial Compliance”. If a sending state has taken no action on outstanding warrants or pending charges the offender is considered to be in substantial compliance under the rule.