Compact Online Reference Encyclopedia (CORE)

Looking for information on a specific topic, training, rule, or process? Through one search here, you can find the information you need from ICAOS’ white papersadvisory opinions, bylaws, policies, Hearing Officer's Guidetraining modulesrules, helpdesk articles and the bench book. All results are cross-referenced with links to make navigation easy and intuitive.

Displaying 61 - 90 of 562
If the hearing officer determines that probable cause exists and the offender has committed the alleged violations, the receiving state must detain the offender in custody pending the outcome of decisions in the sending state. Within 15 business days of…
The offender may waive this hearing only if she or he admits to one or more violations of their supervision. See Rule 5.108(b), also Sanders v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 958 A.2d 582 (2008). The effect of waiving the probable cause…
An offender subject to retaking proceedings has no right to bail. Rule 5.111 specifically prohibits any court or paroling authority in any state to admit an offender to bail pending completion of the retaking process, individual state law to the contrary…
For purposes of revocation or other punitive action, a sending state is required to give the same force and effect to the violation of a condition imposed by the receiving state as if the condition had been imposed by the sending state. Furthermore, the…
With thousands of offenders under supervision under the Interstate Compact for Adult Offender Supervision (ICAOS, or the Compact), lawsuits against the judicial officials, correctional officials, and others who administer the Compact are inevitable. This…
The two principal pathways through which government officers might face legal liability through their work related to ICAOS are (1) federal civil rights lawsuits under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and (2) state law tort claims. Plaintiffs will also sometimes attempt…
One of the primary vehicles through which officials might be sued for their work related to the Compact is 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Section 1983), a federal statute that creates a cause of action for violations of a person’s civil rights. The statute gives a…
The federal right in question in a Section 1983 action is typically a constitutional right (for example, the right to equal protection under the law or the right to be free from an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment to the United States…
That the Compact itself does not create a private right of action does not mean that offenders subject to it are left without a remedy under Section 1983. Instead, it means that their complaints must be framed as violations of a right enumerated in the…
In general, Section 1983 liability will not be predicated solely on a theory of respondeat superior. For example, a chief probation officer or other supervisor or manager will not automatically be deemed vicariously liable simply because he or she sits…
In Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), the Supreme Court clarified that a Section 1983 action should not be used to challenge the validity of a criminal judgment. If the alleged civil rights violation would be one that would render a conviction,…
The interpretation of the “physical harm” requirement of 2.105(a)(1).
Clarification on Offenders being charged fee by sending state after transferred to receiving state.
Clarification on offenders who are undocumented immigrants.
Clarification of rule 4.112 and closing supervision by the receiving state.
An offender being in the receiving state prior to investigation as a valid reason for rejection.
Whether a receiving state can predicate acceptance to a residential program with a condition obligating the sending state to retake if the offender fails to complete the program. If this condition is acceptable, would the Commission sustain a request to…
Determination of second or subsequent misdemeanor DUI offense.
Clarification of 90 day period of supervision is determined.
Time allowed for investigation by receiving state, Rule 4.101 - Manner and degree of supervision.
Can a receiving state make a determination that an offender is not in substantial compliance in the sending state, when the offender commits a crime in the receiving state during the period of investigation, or when the offender has an outstanding warrant…
Guidance from the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, Office of Civil Rights as to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”) Coverage & Exemptions for the Interstate Compact for Adult Offender Supervision
Opinion as to Washington’s “deferred prosecution” statute (described in Chapter 10.05.020 et. seq. RCW) are subject to the Interstate Compact for Adult Offender Supervision (“Compact”) and are, therefore, eligible for transfer of supervision under Rule 2.…
Are offenders who are not eligible to transfer under the provisions of Rule 3.101 (a) or Rule 2.105 of the Rules of the Interstate Compact for Adult Offender Supervision permitted to transfer under Rule 3.101 (c) as a discretionary transfer?
Arresting & Detaining Compact Probationers and Parolees. Authority of officers to arrest an out-of-state offender sent to Florida under the ICAOS on probation violations.
Offenders sentenced under the Violent Predator Incapacitation Act who seek transfer CSL supervision outside the state of New Jersey.
Rejection of Transfers Based on Outstanding Warrants. "May a state reject a transfer request from an offender, who is a resident of that state and has verified employment, when there are warrants or pending charges in the receiving state?”
Consider adoption of an emergency rule under Section 2.109 of the Rules pertaining to the supervision of offenders from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.  The Compact statute does not provide for an alternative means of compact membership and the…
Clarification as to the eligibility for transfer of supervision of an offender subject to “deferred sentences” pursuant to Section 2.106 of the amended rule adopted March 12, 2004.
Displaying 61 - 90 of 562