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 151 - 180 of 548
Courts have generally upheld sex offender registration requirements for sex offenders whose supervision transfers under an interstate Compact so long as such registration requirements are not discriminatory. Thus, a receiving state may impose sex offender…
As the ICAOS governs the movement of supervised individuals and not the terms and conditions of sentencing, the ICAOS rules are silent on the imposition of restitution. This is therefore a matter governed exclusively by the laws of the sending state and…
Rule 4.107 permits the collection of fees from individuals subject to the Compact. Specifically, Rule 4.107(a), allows the sending state to impose a transfer application fee, while Rule 4.107(b) authorizes the receiving state to impose a supervision fee.…
The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) and rules promulgated pursuant thereto are intended to protect certain healthcare information from disclosure to authorized persons or entities. Generally, prior to disclosure of…
A key objective of the ICAOS is to facilitate the effective transfer of supervised individuals between states and to manage their return to the sending state through mechanisms other than formal extradition. Consequently, a supervised individual's status…
Waiver of Formal Extradition Proceedings
Principal among the provisions of the ICAOS are the waiver of formal extradition requirements for returning supervised individuals who violate the terms and condition of their supervision. The ICAOS specifically provides that: The Compacting states…
A supervised individual who absconds from a receiving state is a fugitive from justice. The procedures for returning a fugitive to a demanding state can be affected by the Uniform Extradition and Rendition Act (UERA). Under that act, a fugitive may waive…
As previously noted, Article I of ICAOS authorizes officers from a sending state to enter a receiving state, or any state where a supervised individual has absconded, for the purpose of retaking. Except for limited exceptions, the decision to retake lies…
A receiving state is obligated to report to sending state authorities within 30 calendar days of the discovery or determination that a supervised individual has engaged in behavior requiring retaking. “Behavior requiring retaking” is defined in Rule 1.101…
Given the large number of individuals under supervision through the Interstate Compact for Adult Offender Supervision (ICAOS, or the Compact), legal actions against judicial officials, correctional staff, and other administrators of the Compact are…
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…
While the Compact does not create a private right of action, this does not leave supervised individuals without recourse under Section 1983. Instead, their claims must be framed as violations of constitutionally protected rights. There are numerous…
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,…
Plaintiffs can bring Section 1983 actions against defendants in their official capacity or in their individual capacity. Defendants sued in their official capacity will generally be immune from suits for monetary damages under the Eleventh Amendment to…
There is rarely any doubt in the case law that probation and parole officials are “persons” and that, in performing their duties, they are acting under “color of law” within the meaning of Section 1983. The law also allows suits against municipalities and…
In addition to civil rights lawsuits, supervised individuals (and others) sometimes file tort claims related to conduct arising under the Compact. In many cases, some form of immunity will apply, and questions related to immunity will generally turn on…
Supervised individuals will sometimes allege that officers were negligent in carrying out their duties under the Compact. For example, in Grayson v. Kansas, No. 06-2375-KHV, 2007 WL 1259990, at *1 (D. Kan. Apr. 30, 2007), a probationer transferred under…
An unfortunate fact pattern that arises from time to time is when a Compact supervised individual causes the injury or death of a victim. Victims of those incidents (or their family members or estate) will sometimes raise tort claims against correctional…
Some federal statutes have their own enforcement mechanism through an express or implied cause of action in the federal statute itself. See Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275 (2001) (applying the test through which a court determines whether a statute…
Under the doctrine of sovereign immunity, the government may not be sued without its consent. The concept flows from the common-law notion that the “the king can do no wrong” and that a lawsuit could not be brought against him in his own courts. Through…
Whether rule 2.105 applies to hunting violations involving the use of a firearm
The effect of a Washington statute that prohibits certain offenders from being under supervision
Whether a California statute classifying offenders as not subject to supervision or revocation are eligible for transfer under the Compact
Whether a sending state can close interest in a case if the offender's status no longer qualifies under the definition of supervision
Displaying 151 - 180 of 548