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 papers, advisory opinions, bylaws, policies, Hearing Officer's Guide, training modules, rules, helpdesk articles and the bench book. All results are cross-referenced with links to make navigation easy and intuitive.
Where state law and a Compact conflict, courts are required under the Supremacy Clause (for Compacts with consent) and as a matter of contract law to apply the terms and conditions of the Compact to a given case. The fact that a judge may not like the…
Special Considerations for Litigation Involving Interstate Commissions
In Texas v. New Mexico, the Supreme Court sustained exceptions to a Special Master’s recommendation to enlarge the Pecos River Compact Commission, holding that one consequence of a Compact becoming “a law of the United States” is that “no court may order…
The Eleventh Amendment guarantees state sovereign immunity from suit in federal court. The Eleventh Amendment ensures that states retain certain attributes of sovereignty, including sovereign immunity. Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1, 13 (1890). Over the…
Some Compacts authorize the interstate commission to seek judicial action to enforce the Compact against a party state. Article XII.C of the ICAOS is a good example. See Interstate Comm’n for Adult Offender Supervision v. Tennessee Bd. of Prob. &…
For additional information on interstate Compact law and interstate Compacts generally, see MICHAEL L. BUENGER, JEFFREY B. LITWAK, MICHAEL H. MCCABE & RICHARD L. MASTERS,, THE EVOLVING LAW AND USE OF INTERSTATE COMPACTS 2d ed. (ABA Publ’g 2016) and…
In 1934, Congress authorized the creation of interstate Compacts on crime control, which led to the 1937 Interstate Compact for the Supervision of Parolees and Probationers. Also referred to as the Interstate Compact for Probation and Parole or the…
The intent of the ICAOS is not to dictate judicial sentencing or place restrictions on the court’s discretion relative to sentencing. See Scott v. Virginia, 676 S.E.2d 343, 347 (Va. App. 2009). The ICAOS contains no provisions directing judges on…
Notwithstanding any other rule, if an offender is charged with a subsequent felony or violent crime, the offender shall not be retaken or ordered to return until criminal charges have been dismissed, sentence has been satisfied, or the offender has been…
Notwithstanding any other rule, a sentence imposing a period of incarceration on an offender convicted of a new crime which occurred outside the sending state during the compact period may satisfy or partially satisfy the sentence imposed by the sending…
(a) Upon a request from the receiving state, a sending state shall retake an offender from the receiving state or a subsequent receiving state after the offender’s conviction for a new felony offense or new violent crime and:
completion of a term of…
(a) 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…
(a) Within 15 business days of receipt of an absconder violation report and case closure, the sending state shall issue a warrant and, upon apprehension of the offender, file a detainer with the holding facility where the offender is in custody.
(b) If an…
REPEALED effective March 1, 2014
History: Adopted October 13, 2010, effective March 1, 2011; repealed August 28, 2013, effective March 1, 2014.
A sending state shall be responsible for the cost of retaking the offender.
History: Adopted November 4, 2003, effective August 1, 2004.
A sending state shall retake an offender within 30 calendar days after the offender has been taken into custody on the sending state’s warrant and the offender is being held solely on the sending state’s warrant.
History: Adopted November 4, 2003,…
A receiving state shall be responsible for the cost of detaining the offender in the receiving state pending the offender’s retaking by the sending state.
History: Adopted November 4, 2003, effective August 1, 2004.
(a) Officers authorized under the law of a sending state may enter a state where the offender is found and apprehend and retake the offender, subject to this compact, its rules, and due process requirements.
(b) The sending state shall be required to…
(a) An offender subject to retaking that may result in a revocation shall be afforded the opportunity for a probable cause hearing before a neutral and detached hearing officer in or reasonably near the place where the alleged violation occurred.
(b) No…
States that are party to this compact shall allow officers authorized by the law of the sending or receiving state to transport offenders through the state without interference.
History: Adopted November 4, 2003, effective August 1, 2004.
(a) Officers authorized by the law of a sending state may take custody of an offender from a local, state or federal correctional facility at the expiration of the sentence or the offender’s release from that facility provided that–
No detainer has been…
An offender against whom retaking procedures have been instituted by a sending or receiving state shall not be admitted to bail or other release conditions in any state.
History: Adopted November 4, 2003, effective August 1, 2004; amended October 4, 2006…
(a) Through the office of a state’s compact administrator, states shall attempt to resolve disputes or controversies by communicating with each other by telephone, telefax, or electronic mail.
(b) Failure to resolve dispute or controversy—
Following an…
(a) Alternative dispute resolution—Any controversy or dispute between or among parties that arises from or relates to this compact that is not resolved under Rule 6.101 may be resolved by alternative dispute resolution processes. These shall consist of…
(a) If the Interstate Commission determines that any state has at any time defaulted (“defaulting state”) in the performance of any of its obligations or responsibilities under this Compact, the by–laws or any duly promulgated rules the Interstate…
The Interstate Commission may, by majority vote of the members, initiate legal action in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia or, at the discretion of the Interstate Commission, in the federal district where the Interstate…
Rules governing the general provisions of the
Interstate Commission for Adult Offender Supervision
Rules governing transfer of supervision under the compact of the
Interstate Commission for Adult Offender Supervision
Rules governing supervision in the receiving state under the compact of the
Interstate Commission for Adult Offender Supervision