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 1 - 30 of 548
Advisory Opinion 1-2011
Whether rule 2.105 applies to hunting violations involving the use of a firearm
Advisory Opinion 4-2010
The effect of a Washington statute that prohibits certain offenders from being under supervision
Advisory Opinion 3-2010
Whether a California statute classifying offenders as not subject to supervision or revocation are eligible for transfer under the Compact
Advisory Opinion 2-2010
Whether a sending state can close interest in a case if the offender's status no longer qualifies under the definition of supervision
Advisory Opinion 1-2010
Whether a receiving state can require relevant documents and return an offender that can no longer be safely supervised
Advisory Opinion 1-2009
Whether a sending state may request an investigation prior to the offender’s release from incarceration
Advisory Opinion 3-2008
Whether sex offenders can travel out of state once they are transferred to a receiving state
Advisory Opinion 2-2008
Authority to issue travel permits
Advisory Opinion 1-2008
Clarification regarding sex offenders living in the receiving state at the time of sentencing and imposing/enforcing special conditions
Advisory Opinion 3-2007
Whether receiving states can denying reporting instructions based on an invalid plan of supervision
Advisory Opinion 2-2007
Whether offenders who seek to reside in federal housing are eligible for transfer under the Compact
Advisory Opinion 16-2006
Interpretation of physical harm and whether states can consider other criteria such as plea bargains in determining eligibility
Advisory Opinion 14-2006
Imposing fees on offenders transferring through the Compact
Advisory Opinion 13-2006
Whether an undocumented immigrant is subject to the Compact
Advisory Opinion 11-2006
Whether an offender is subject to retaking under the compact if a receiving state closes interest in a case pursuant to rule 4.112
Advisory Opinion 9-2006
Whether the offender being in the receiving state prior to investigation is a valid reason for rejection
Advisory Opinion 8-2006
Whether a receiving state can predicate acceptance to a residential program on the sending state agreeing to retake if the offender fails to complete the program.
Advisory Opinion 7-2006
Whether the second or subsequent misdemeanor DUI meets ICAOS eligibility
Advisory Opinion 6-2006
Clarification on how the 90-days remaining on supervision is determined
Advisory Opinion 5-2006
Whether a receiving state can exceed the 45 day rule to determine if a supervision plan is valid for sex offenders
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
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. &…
Displaying 1 - 30 of 548