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:

Oklahoma sex offender court ordered under control of Oklahoma DOC.

Finding:

The Oklahoma offender was clearly placed under the supervision of the Oklahoma Department of Corrections and conditions were imposed upon the offender as part of the suspended sentence that require payment of restitution in addition to other requirements which are conditions of probation.

Both of the above criteria for supervision under the compact have been satisfied and it appears that any transfer of the offender to another state must be under the terms of the Compact and its’ rules.

Issued:
Requester:
At Issue:

Rejection of Transfers Based on Outstanding Warrants. May a state reject a transfer request from an offender, who is a resident of that state and has verified employment, when there are warrants or pending charges in the receiving state?”

Finding:

Intent of 3.101 is that while the sending state controls the decision of whether or not to transfer an offender under the Compact, the receiving state has no discretion as to whether or not to accept the case as long as the offender satisfies the criteria provided in this rule.

If the sending state has taken no action on these warrants and has not specifically determined these warrants or pending charges to be a basis for revocation proceedings, then the transfer application should not be rejected only on this basis.

Issued:
Rule(s):
Requester:
At Issue:

Consider adoption of an emergency rule under Section 2.109 of the Rules pertaining to the supervision of offenders from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Finding:

The Compact statute does not provide for an alternative means of compact membership and the previous “transition period” for the applicability of the rules under the predecessor compact are now “null and void” based on the explicit provisions of the compact statutes of the member states.

Issued:
Requester:
At Issue:

Clarification as to the eligibility for transfer of supervision of an offender subject to “deferred sentences” pursuant to Section 2.106 of the amended rule adopted March 12, 2004.

Finding:

In determining the eligibility of an offender and the application of the ICAOS, one must look not at the legal definitions but rather the legal action taken by a court of competent jurisdiction or paroling authorities. To find otherwise would lead to disruptions in the smooth movement of offenders, the equitable application of the ICAOS to the states, and the uniform application of the rules.

Issued:
Requester:
At Issue:

Issuing travel permits to the Receiving state during the investigation period.

Finding:

Once an application has been made under the Compact an offender may not travel to the Receiving State without the Receiving State’s permission.

Issued:
Requester:
At Issue:

Offenders sentenced under the Violent Predator Incapacitation Act who seek transfer CSL supervision outside the state of New Jersey.

Finding:

Considering the literal language and plain meaning of the rules of the Interstate Compact for Adult Offender Supervision, as referenced herein, it is our opinion that CSL offenders are subject to supervision under the Interstate Compact for Adult Offender Supervision and upon proper application and documentation of a valid plan of supervision and verification of the residency and employment criteria as required under those rules should be permitted to transfer to other states for supervision under the Compact.