Transfers are classified into two categories, (1) mandatory acceptance and (2) discretionary acceptance.
Rule 3.101 governs mandatory transfer of supervision. Although this rule uses the term “mandatory,” the rule also specifies that the authority to transfer a supervised individual to another state lies solely with the discretion of the sending state. See, e.g., People v. Warren, No. D084087, 2025 WL 2649533 (Cal. Ct. App. Sept. 16, 2025) (discussing a probation order that included a term that required the supervised individual to obtain the court’s and probation officer’s written consent before moving out of state). The supervised individual does not have a constitutional right to transfer their supervision to another state, even if otherwise eligible. Accordingly, Rule 3.101 should not be construed as creating any constitutionally protected right for a supervised individual to relocate. Rather, Rule 3.101 imposes an obligation on the receiving state to accept the individual for supervision once the sending state has decided to transfer supervision.
If a sending state decides to transfer supervision, and the supervised individual has three months or more or an indefinite period of supervision remaining, the receiving state must accept the transfer if the individual:
Is in substantial compliance with a valid plan of supervision; and,
Is a resident of the receiving state; or,
Has resident family in the receiving state who has indicated (1) a willingness to assist in satisfying the plan of supervision, and (2) the supervised individual can obtain employment or has a means of support.
If a valid plan of supervision requires the supervised individual to demonstrate they have a means of economic support, failure to meet this obligation may result in the denial of transfer even if the individual satisfies the residence requirements. See ICAOS Advisory Opinion 8-2005 and Rule 1.101.
The intent of adding “substantial compliance” to the eligibility criteria is to prevent the transfer of supervised individuals who are not adhering to the terms and conditions of their supervision in the sending state. However, pending charges in the receiving state are irrelevant to the transfer decision when the issuing authority takes no action. Therefore, if the sending state does not act on these warrants or determines that the pending charges do not warrant revocation proceedings, the transfer application should not be rejected solely for this reason. Denying transfers on this basis alone unjustifiably prevents supervised individuals, who are residents of the receiving state, from transferring their supervision. See ICAOS Advisory Opinion 7-2004.