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 61 - 90 of 548
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
Bench Book - 1.7.1 Relief Must Be Consistent with the Compact
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…
Bench Book - 1.7.2 Eleventh Amendment Issues for Interstate Commissions
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…
Bench Book - 1.8 Party State, Interstate Commission, and Third-Party Enforcement Compacts
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. &…
Bench Book - 1.9 Recommended Sources of Compact Law and Information
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…
Chapter 2 - Interstate Commission for Adult Offender Supervision (ICAOS)
Bench Book - 2.1 History of the Interstate Compact for Probation and Parole (ICPP)
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…
Bench Book - 2.2 Why the Interstate Compact for Adult Offender Supervision?
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…
Bench Book - 2.3 General Principles Affecting Interstate Movement of Supervised Individuals
As a general proposition, convicted persons enjoy no right to interstate travel or a constitutionally protected interest to supervision in another state. See Jones v. Helms, 452 U.S. 412, 418-20 (1981); Griffin v. Wisconsin, 483 U.S. 868, 874 (1987); U.S…
Bench Book - 2.4 Historical Development of the ICAOS
The ICAOS was written to address problems and complaints with the ICPP. Chief among the problems and complaints were: Lack of state compliance with the terms and conditions of the ICPP; Enforceability of its rules given there was no enforcement mechanism…
Bench Book - 2.5 Purpose of the ICAOS
Against this backdrop, concerned parties proposed a new Compact to the states. Defined in Article I, the purpose of the Compact provided: [T]he framework for the promotion of public safety and protect the rights of victims through the control and…
Bench Book - 2.6 Effect of the ICAOS on the States
As previously discussed, the ICAOS received advanced congressional consent pursuant to 4 U.S.C. § 112 (2004). Accordingly, the agreement created a Compact that must be construed as federal law enforceable on member states through the Supremacy Clause and…
Advisory Opinion 6-2005
Whether offenders subject to Washington’s “deferred prosecution” statute are eligible for transfer under the Compact
Advisory Opinion 4-2005
Whether offenders who are not eligible to transfer under Rule 3.101 or 2.105 are permitted to a discretionary transfer
Advisory Opinion 2-2005
Whether officers can arrest and detain compact offenders for probation violations
Advisory Opinion 9-2004
Individuals and sex offenders subject to lifetime supervision (CSL)
Advisory Opinion 7-2004
Whether a receiving state can reject a transfer if there are warrants or pending charges in the receiving state
Advisory Opinion MA-2004
Adopting an emergency rule for Massachusetts who had not enacted the Compact
Advisory Opinion 4-2004
Whether an offender subject to a deferred sentence is eligible for transfer under the Compact
Advisory Opinion 1-2019
How states should manage absconders apprehended in the receiving state
2004 Advisory Opinions
ICAOS Advisory Opinions published in 2004
2005 Advisory Opinions
ICAOS Advisory Opinions published in 2005
2006 Advisory Opinions
ICAOS Advisory Opinions published in 2006
2007 Advisory Opinions
ICAOS Advisory Opinions published in 2007
2008 Advisory Opinions
ICAOS Advisory Opinions published in 2008
2009 Advisory Opinions
ICAOS Advisory Opinions published in 2009
2010 Advisory Opinions
ICAOS Advisory Opinions published in 2010
2011 Advisory Opinions
ICAOS Advisory Opinions published in 2011
2012 Advisory Opinions
ICAOS Advisory Opinions published in 2012
Displaying 61 - 90 of 548