The Commission has devoted considerable resources to streamline and automate the transfer process. Since moving to an online transfer process, called ICOTS, many potential delays associated with postal mail have been eliminated. The exchange of offender information that once required weeks is completed in days (and in many cases hours or minutes).
There are many factors which can complicate and delay a transfer and not all are directly associated with the process. These may include:
This compact does not have authority over local probation policies, practices or procedures. If you cannot work out your issues with the probation department then you should obtain whatever legal assistance you feel is necessary.
The Interstate Commission for Adult Offender Supervision has its own definition of residency. Declarations of domicile have no impact on the ICAOS transfer process.
ICAOS defines a “Resident” as a person who
The Interstate Commission for Adult Offender Supervision is an agreement between states; individuals have no standing in the compact nor a constitutional right to transfer. As a result, interstate transfer of supervision is a privilege and individuals cannot appeal a rejection.
If the sending state disagrees with the decision of the receiving state and it believes the receiving state is violating a rule of the compact, the sending state can file a formal complaint with the Interstate Commission. The sending state exercises total discretion on initiating such challenges and has no obligation to do so.
Resource: Compact Statute, Article 1
Yes. Rule 4.101 requires the receiving state to supervise an offender transferred under the interstate compact in a manner consistent with the supervision of other similar offenders sentenced in the receiving state, including the use of incentives, corrective actions, graduated responses, and other supervision techniques.
Furthermore, Rule 4.103 (a) states that at the time of acceptance or during the term of supervision, the receiving state may impose a condition on an offender if that condition would have been imposed on an offender sentenced in the receiving state.
Resources: Rule 4.101 and 4.103 (a)
The sending state retains the authority to extend the length of supervision but may do so at the recommendation of the supervising officer in the receiving state.
Resource: Rule 4.102
Mandatory transfer eligibility is determined at the time of a transfer request. Once transfer of supervision is accepted, the receiving state agrees to supervise for a length of time determined by the sending state. However, the sending state has the discretion to require an offender to return at anytime for any reason.
No two situations or offenders are alike; thus making it difficult to generalize when an offender’s behavior requires retaking. A receiving state shall notify a sending state of an act or pattern of behavior requiring retaking within 30 calendar days of discovery or determination by submitting a violation report. Upon a request by the receiving state, and documentation that the offender’s behavior requires retaking, a sending state shall issue a warrant to retake or order the return of an offender from the receiving state, or a subsequent receiving state, within 15 business days of the receipt of the violation report. Resources: Rule 4.109 & Rule 5.103
An individual alleging that a state has violated the rules published by the Commission must file their action in federal court. The Commission is responsible for enforcing the agreement between states, not between the states and individuals.
Resource: Compact Statute, Article XIV