The ICAOS rules permit the use of remote proceedings in appropriate circumstances, provided that the requirements of the compact are satisfied and no mandatory retaking provision is implicated.
When a supervised individual is physically present in the receiving state at the time of sentencing or prior to formal transfer approval, the use of remote sentencing or deferred proceedings is not inconsistent with the compact. Compact eligibility and supervision obligations are determined by the Rules, not by the physical format of the proceeding. Judges may conduct remote sentencing or deferred proceedings when the individual already resides in the receiving state, provided that all compact transfer requirements are met and supervisory authority is clearly coordinated between the sending and receiving states.
A sending state may conduct violation or revocation proceedings remotely without first retaking the supervised individual. Rule 5.101-2 authorizes proceedings to be conducted electronically or in person and clarifies that retaking is required only when the outcome necessitates incarceration or return to the sending state. However, when the rules mandate retaking, the obligation to physically retake is not affected by the use of remote proceedings. In these circumstances, a sending state must retake the supervised individual regardless of whether the violation hearing was conducted remotely.
The use of remote proceedings does not alter a supervised individual’s constitutional due process rights. Courts must ensure that notice, representation, and an opportunity to be heard are preserved in accordance with applicable law. A receiving state that facilitates communication or provides administrative assistance in connection with a remote proceeding does not assume responsibility for the sending state’s legal determinations. The sending state remains responsible for ensuring that its proceedings comply with constitutional and statutory requirements.