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.

Displaying 31 - 60 of 548
Bench Book - 3.2.1.6.2 Deferred Prosecution
 Some states may use a “sentencing” option referred to as deferred prosecution. Authorized by state statutes, this option allows the supervised individual to admit to or stipulate the facts of the criminal conduct but defers prosecution contingent upon…
Bench Book - 3.2.1.6.3 What Constitutes Second and Subsequent Conviction of Driving While Impaired?
Special attention should be given to individuals convicted of a second or subsequent offense for driving while impaired (DUI and DWI offenses). Because state laws vary significantly in defining what constitutes a second or subsequent conviction, the…
Bench Book - 3.2.2 Special Considerations
Special Considerations
Bench Book - 3.2.2.1 Out-of-state Treatment
One area for potential confusion centers on the issue of treatment in lieu of supervision or treatment as supervision. In such cases, courts may be inclined to defer sentence and require enrollment in a community-based or in-house treatment program in…
Bench Book - 3.3 Initiating the Transfer Process
Initiating the Transfer Process
Bench Book - 3.3.1 Time of Transfer
The Commission's rules can significantly affect the time between the final disposition of a case and the supervised individual’s ability to move to another state. Even if the supervised individual is eligible for transfer under the Compact, the court…
Bench Book - 3.3.1.1 Expedited Transfers
 The Commission’s rules provide an “expedited” option, allowing a supervised individual to transfer supervision on a “pending acceptance” basis. To qualify for expedited reporting instructions, both the sending and receiving states must agree that an…
Bench Book - 3.3.1.2 Reporting Instructions for Probationers Living in the Receiving State at the Time of Sentencing or After Disposition of a Violation or Revocation Proceeding
The Commission adopted Rule 3.103 to address situations where individuals, upon sentencing, live in the receiving state and need to relocate before acceptance and receiving reporting instructions. This rule permits a supervised individual who is residing…
Bench Book - 3.3.2 Pre-Acceptance Testing
A supervised individual who is otherwise eligible for transfer under Rule 3.101 may not be required to submit to psychological testing by the receiving state as a condition for accepting the transfer. Imposing such “pre-acceptance” requirements on…
Bench Book - 3.3.3 Post-Acceptance Testing
While receiving states cannot impose pre-acceptance requirements on supervised individuals that would violate their obligations under the Compact, the Compact and its rules do not prohibit receiving states from imposing post-acceptance testing…
Bench Book - 3.3.4 Transfer of Supervision of Sex Offenders
The Commission recognizes that the transfer of sex offenders is complex due to individual state laws regarding sex offender registries and various residency and employment restrictions. Rule 3.101-3 addresses these challenges in order to promote…
Bench Book - 3.4 Supervision in the Receiving State
Supervision in the Receiving State
Bench Book - 3.4.1 Duration of Supervision
When interpreting the ICAOS and its rules, eligibility for transferring supervision hinges on the nature of the offense, the sentence imposed, and the status of the supervised individual, rather than the duration of supervision remaining under Rule 3.101…
Bench Book - 3.4.2 Type of Supervision in Receiving State
While the sending state has sole authority to determine the duration of supervision, whether through the court’s sentence or by paroling authorities, the receiving state retains discretion over the type of supervision it will provide. Rule 4.101 requires…
Bench Book - 3.4.2.1 Disabled Supervised Individuals
A receiving state is obligated to continue supervising individuals “who become mentally ill or exhibit signs of mental illness or who develop a physical disability while under supervision in the receiving state.” See Rule 2.108. Therefore, it would be…
Bench Book - 3.4.2.2 Continuing Jurisdiction over Supervised Individuals Between the Sending & Receiving States
Transferring an individual’s supervision through the Compact does not deprive the sending state of jurisdiction over the individual unless the record indicates that the sending state intended to relinquish jurisdiction. See, e.g., Scott v. Virginia, 676 S…
Bench Book - 3.5 Other Considerations
Other Considerations
Bench Book - 3.5.1 Post-Transfer Change of the Underlying Circumstances
 As discussed, the transfer of supervision for a supervised individual is mandatory in some circumstances. Receiving states are required to accept the transfer if the individual meets the eligibility criteria outlined in Rules 3.101 and 3.101-1. As…
Bench Book - 1.2.2 Compacts Are Not Uniform Laws
An interstate Compact differs fundamentally from a "uniform law" in its nature and application. Unlike uniform laws, which are not contractual in nature, interstate Compacts are binding agreements between states. A state cannot selectively adopt…
Bench Book - 1.2.3 Compacts Are Not Administrative Agreements
Compacts differ from administrative agreements in two principal ways. First, states, as sovereigns, have inherent authority to enact Compacts. See Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 37 U.S. (12 Pet.) 657, 725 (1838). Thus, states do not need any express…
Bench Book - 1.3 Delegation of State Authority to an Interstate Commission
One of the axioms of modern government is a state legislature’s ability to delegate rulemaking power to an administrative body. This delegation of authority extends to the creation of an interstate commission through an interstate Compact. See Hess v.…
Bench Book - 1.4 Congressional Consent Requirement
The ICAOS operates under Congress’ consent in the Crime Control Act of 1934, 4 U.S.C. § 112 (2012).
Bench Book - 1.4.1 When Consent is Required
The Compact Clause of the U.S. Constitution states, “No State shall, without the consent of Congress, . . . enter into any agreement or Compact with another State . . . .” U.S. CONST. art. I, § 10, cl. 3. Though a strict reading of the Compact Clause…
Bench Book - 1.4.2 Withdrawal and Modification of Congressional Consent
Once Congress grants its consent to a Compact, the general view is that it may not be withdrawn. Although the matter has not been resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court, two federal circuit courts of appeal have held that congressional consent, once given, is…
Bench Book - 1.4.3 Implications of Congressional Consent
Congressional consent can significantly change the nature of an interstate Compact. “[W]here Congress has authorized the States to enter into a cooperative agreement, and where the subject matter of that agreement is an appropriate subject for…
Bench Book - 1.5 Interpretation of Interstate Compacts
Because Compacts are statutes and contracts, courts interpret interstate Compacts in the same manner as interpreting ordinary statutes and by applying contract law principles. PRACTICE NOTE: No court has explained when to apply statutory construction…
Bench Book - 1.6 Application of State Law that Conflicts with an Interstate Compact
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…
Bench Book - 1.7 Special Considerations for Litigation Involving Interstate Commissions
Special Considerations for Litigation Involving Interstate Commissions
ACKNOWLEGEMENTS
Acknowledgements The Commission would like to acknowledge the assistance of all the individuals involved in drafting this book and, more specifically, to the authors and reviewers that took part in the review process. Our sincere gratitude goes to the…
INTERSTATE COMPACT LAW - A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE
Interstate Compacts are not new legal instruments. Compacts derive from the nation’s colonial past where states utilized agreements, like modern Compacts, to resolve inter-colonial disputes, particularly boundary disputes. The colonies and crown employed…
Displaying 31 - 60 of 548