Transfers are classified into two categories, (1) mandatory acceptance and (2) discretionary acceptance. The authority to transfer a supervised individual to another state lies solely with the sending state. See Rule 3.101. 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. The sending state’s decision to deny a transfer of supervision is final and is entitled to judicial deference. See Com. v. Mowry, 921 N.E.2d 565 (Mass. App. 2010); also Strong v. Kansas Parole Bd., 115 P.3d 794 (Kan. Ct. App. 2005).

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 07-2004.

A receiving state can accept the transfer of a supervised individual who does not meet the mandatory acceptance criteria. However, this acceptance is at the discretion of the receiving state under circumstances not covered by mandatory acceptance. For instance, a supervised individual who is ineligible for mandatory transfer due to the nature of the offense or failure to meet residency and employment requirements may still be transferred under the discretionary provisions of the rules. See ICAOS Advisory Opinion 4-2005. Under such circumstances, transfer may be warranted when in the opinion of both the sending and receiving states such a transfer is in the interests of justice and rehabilitation. It must be emphasized, however, that a discretionary transfer requires the consent of both the sending and receiving states. The failure to obtain such consent prohibits the transfer of supervision.

The sending state must submit a transfer request along with all relevant information necessary for the receiving state to investigate and accept the transfer. Rule 3.107 sets out the information that must be provided to the receiving state prior to transfer.

With limited exceptions, a sending state shall not allow a supervised individual to relocate without the receiving state’s explicit acceptance. See Rule 2.110. Allowing the supervised individual to relocate prior to acceptance may trigger two events:

(1) the sending state shall order the supervised individual to return to the sending state, and

(2) the receiving state can reject the placement, requiring a new transfer request.

See ICAOS Advisory Opinion 9-2006. Practically, this means that no court or paroling authority may authorize a supervised individual to relocate before acceptance by the receiving state, unless the transfer of supervision is accomplished pursuant to expedited reporting instructions under Rule 3.106 or Rules 3.101-1 and 3.103. See discussion infra § 3.2.2.5.