5.5.1 Circumstances Authorizing Arrest and Detention

     The arrest and detention of an out-of-state supervised individual generally fall into three categories.

1. New criminal offense in the receiving state

     A supervised individual who commits a new criminal offense in the receiving state is subject to arrest and detention under that state’s criminal laws. The receiving state retains primary jurisdiction over the new offense and may prosecute and incarcerate the individual accordingly. See Rules 5.101, 5.101-1, and 5.102.

     Retaking under the Compact does not occur while the individual is serving a sentence for the new offense. Pursuant to Rule 5.101-1, the sending state may not execute retaking until the criminal charges are resolved, the sentence has been satisfied, or the individual has been released to supervision for the subsequent offense, unless the sending and receiving states mutually agree to an earlier retaking.

2. Arrest and detention pending retaking by the sending state

     A receiving state may arrest and detain a supervised individual when the sending state issues a warrant and seeks retaking, whether in response to a request from the receiving state or for purposes of revocation. The sending state must issue a warrant for retaking, and if the individual is already in custody, the warrant may be lodged as a detainer.

     Courts have upheld the authority of receiving states to arrest and hold supervised individuals pending retaking pursuant to compact authority. Because the individual has previously executed a waiver of extradition under Rule 3.109, formal extradition proceedings are not required. In this context, detention pending retaking has been sustained without application of traditional bail procedures applicable to new criminal charges. See State ex rel. Ohio Adult Parole Auth. v. Coniglio, 610 N.E.2d 1196, (Ohio Ct. App. 1993); Crady v. Cranfill, 371 S.W.2d 640 (Ky. Ct. App. 1963).

3. Arrest and detention for violations occurring in the receiving state (including for sanctioning)

     A supervised individual may also be arrested and detained for violations of supervision occurring in the receiving state, even where no new criminal charges are filed and retaking has not yet been initiated. Courts have recognized that transferred individuals remain subject to enforcement of supervision conditions in the receiving state. See Kaczmarek v. Longsworth, 1997 WL 76190 (6th Cir.); Perry v. Pennsylvania, No. 05-1757, 2008 WL 2543119, at *7 (W.D. Pa. 2008).

     Detention in this context is not limited to facilitating retaking. Consistent with the compact and its supervision authority, the receiving state may employ arrest and detention as part of its response to violations, including the use of authorized sanctions, provided such actions are consistent with its supervision practices for similarly situated in-state individuals and with applicable Compact rules. See Rule 4.101(b). See Longson v. Nebraska, No. 4:18CV3036, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46874, *7 (D. Neb. Mar. 22, 2018) (custodial sanction of short duration in receiving state in lieu of revocation of probation permissible under Rule 4.101 as discussed in ICAOS Advisory Opinion No. 1-2015).