A supervised individual convicted of a new conviction in the receiving state forming the basis for retaking is not entitled to further hearings, the conviction being conclusive as to the status of the individual’s violations of supervision and the right of the sending state to retake. In this circumstance, there is no need to conduct a probable cause hearing subsequent to the court proceedings simply to make a new (and virtually identical) record for transmission to the sending state. See D’Amato v. U.S. Parole Com’n, 837 F.2d 72, 79 (2d Cir. 1988)

It is important to distinguish between retaking that may result in revocation and retaking that will not. As noted earlier, a supervised individual has no inherent right to supervision in another state, and under the ICAOS, the sending state retains the authority to retake the individual for any reason or no reason at all. See Paull v. Park County, 218 P.3d 1198 (S. Ct. Mt. 2009). For instance, a sending state may retake a supervised individual due to non-compliance with a condition. This failure might lead officials in both the sending and receiving states to determine that the individual would be better managed under supervision in the sending state. However, if there is any uncertainty about whether the sending state intends to revoke the supervised individual’s conditional release based on violations in the receiving state, the individual should be granted a probable cause hearing as outlined in Rule 5.108. Failing to provide this hearing could prevent the violations from being considered in future revocation proceedings in the sending state.