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:

Condition obligating offender to complete residential program.

Finding:

A receiving state may impose a special condition on an offender transferred under Rule 3.101-2 to attend a treatment facility and may order the sending state to return the offender if that offender has failed the program if the offender has no other means of support in the receiving state.

Under the compact and its rules the expectation of the special condition imposed on a discretionary case would be that the sending state would immediately initiate retaking procedures by ordering the return of the offender or issuing a warrant for his return.

Issued:
Requester:
At Issue:

Determination of second or subsequent misdemeanor DUI offense.

Finding:

Rule 2.105 (a) (3) provides no such discretion but unequivocally provides that if the “instant offense includes... a second or subsequent misdemeanor offense of driving while impaired by drugs or alcohol” that such a misdemeanor offender “shall be eligible for transfer.” The rule provides no exceptions to applicability based on either the time period between the first and subsequent offense(s) or the jurisdiction in which the convictions occurred.

Issued:
Requester:
At Issue:

Clarification of 90 day period of supervision is determined.

Finding:

Rule 3.101 (a) should be determined at the time a sending state submits a request for transfer of the offender who at the time of said application must have “more than 90 days or an indefinite period of supervision remaining.”

Issued:
Requester:
At Issue:

Time allowed for investigation by receiving state, Rule 4.101 - Manner and degree of supervision.

Finding:

45 Calendar days is the maximum time the receiving state has under the rules to respond to a sending state’s request for transfer.

This rule does not permit a receiving state to impose the establishment of sex offender risk level or community notification on offenders transferred under the Compact if the receiving state does not impose these same requirements on its own offenders.

Provisions of Rule 4.101 only apply to the manner in which a receiving state supervises an offender who has already been transferred in compliance with the Compact and the Rules.

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:

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.