While a state may be required to accept supervision based on the supervised individual’s eligibility status, the receiving state may determine that certain conditions are necessary at the time of acceptance. The receiving state can only impose conditions that it would impose on similarly supervised in-state individuals. See Rule 4.103(a). A receiving state cannot impose conditions on out-of-state supervised individuals to avoid its obligations under the Compact, nor can it preemptively impose conditions prior to acceptance to prevent a transfer. Such actions, whether on a case-by-case basis or as a routine practice, violate the Commission’s rules. For instance, the receiving state may require out-of-state supervised individuals to comply with registration and testing requirements (e.g., DNA testing, sex offender registration, etc.) if these are mandated by state laws and applied to in-state supervised individuals. See Rule 4.104(a). However, the timing of imposing these conditions is critical to their validity. According to Rule 4.103, the receiving state may impose conditions only after acceptance.

Rule 4.103 mandates that the receiving state notify the sending state of its intent to impose a condition. Once the transfer is accepted, the receiving state can impose conditions on a supervised individual resulting from any permissible investigation. By seeking transfer, the individual agrees to any conditions imposed by the receiving state; thus, applying for transfer and acceptance by the receiving state entails acceptance of these conditions, or risks forfeiting the ability to transfer supervision. The receiving state can impose a condition after acceptance but before the supervised individual physically relocates to the receiving state. See Warner v. McVey, (2010 WL 3239385 (W.D. Pa., July 9, 2010). A supervised individual accepted for transfer may refuse to comply with the conditions set by the receiving state. However, such refusal will prevent the individual from physically relocating their supervision.

A sending state may also impose a condition on a supervised individual as a condition of transferring supervision; however, in this context, the receiving state must receive an opportunity to inform the sending state of its inability to meet a condition. This may be of particular concern to judges. A court may impose a condition and require that it be met in the receiving state; yet the receiving state can refuse to enforce the condition if it is unable to do so. See ICAOS Advisory Opinion 1-2008. The receiving state’s inability to enforce a condition requires the sending state either to withdraw the condition and allow the supervised individual to relocate to the receiving state or withdraw the transfer request and continue to supervise the individual in the sending state.