While a receiving state may be required to accept supervision when a supervised individual meets the eligibility criteria of the Compact, it retains authority to impose lawful supervision conditions after acceptance. However, that authority is limited by Rules 4.101 and 4.103. Rule 4.101(a) requires that a receiving state supervise transferred individuals in a manner consistent with the supervision and risk level applied to similarly sentenced in-state individuals. Accordingly, under Rule 4.103(a), the receiving state may impose only those conditions that it would impose on comparable individuals supervised within its own jurisdiction. See Clancy v. Fla. Dep’t of Corr.. 782 Fed. Appx. 779, (11th Cir. 2019) (where third DUI was misdemeanor in the sending state but a felony in the receiving state, the receiving state could impose conditions consistent with felony status); Karvey v. Ga. Dep’t of Cmty. Supervision, No. 2020CV333221, 2020 Ga. Super. LEXIS 2796, *8–9 (Fulton Cty. Super. Ct. Jan. 13, 2020) (receiving stae may impose conditions as long as such conditions would have been imposed on similar offenders in its state, even if those conditions would not have been imposed by the original state).
Two cases present different applications of this rule. In Goe v. Comm’r of Prob., 46 N.E.3d 997 (Mass. 2016), the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts relied on Massachusetts law, that “the probation department in Massachusetts may add a special condition only where a judge would have been required by law to impose that special condition on the defendant at sentencing; it may not impose a condition of probation that a sentencing judge simply had the discretion to impose.” Id. at 1003. Thus, the Court concluded that a special condition imposed by the sending state judge for the probation department to use its judgment whether to require the supervised individual to submit to GPS monitoring was not required by law and the Massachusetts probation department could not impose a GPS monitoring condition pursuant to Rule 4.103(a). In Commonwealth v. Castaneira, 328 A.3d 1028, 1033 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2024), the Pennsylvania court disagreed with the standard set in Goe for Rule 4.103(a), concluding that the rule does not dictate that a condition must or necessarily would have been applied in the sending state.
A receiving state may not impose additional or more restrictive conditions to avoid its obligations under the Compact, nor may it impose pre-acceptance conditions designed to impede or prevent transfer. Such actions, whether on a case-by-case basis or as a routine practice, violate the Commission’s rules. Additionally, the timing and documentation of imposing these conditions and supervision techniques are critical to their validity. According to Rule 4.103, the receiving state may impose conditions only after acceptance.
Rule 4.103 requires the receiving state to notify the sending state of any conditions it intends to impose following acceptance of the transfer. Once the transfer is accepted, the receiving state can impose conditions consistent with its supervision standards and based on information obtained through permissible investigation. By applying for transfer under the Compact, the individual is subject to the supervision requirements of the receiving state, provided those requirements are applied in a manner consistent with similarly situated in-state individuals.
The receiving state may impose a condition after acceptance but before the supervised individual physically relocates to the receiving state. See Warner v. McVey, No. 08-55 Erie, 2010 WL 3239385 (W.D. Pa. July 9, 2010). A supervised individual accepted for transfer may refuse to comply with the conditions imposed by the receiving state; however, such refusal effectively bars the transfer and prevents the individual from relocating to the receiving state.