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
Chapter 4 - Returning Supervised Individuals to the Sending State
Bench Book - 4.1 Status of Supervised Individuals Subject to ICAOS
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…
Bench Book - 4.2 Waiver of Formal Extradition Proceedings
Waiver of Formal Extradition Proceedings
Bench Book - 4.2.1 Waiver of Extradition under the ICAOS
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…
Bench Book - 4.2.2 Uniform Extradition Act Considerations
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…
Bench Book - 4.3 Retaking
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…
Bench Book - 4.3.1 Violation Reports Requiring Retaking
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…
Bench Book - 4.3.2 Supervised Individuals Convicted of a Violent Crime
At the request of a receiving state, Rule 5.102 requires the sending state to retake a supervised individual convicted of a violent crime. A violent crime is qualified by one of the following four criteria: (1) any crime involving the unlawful exertion of…
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…
Chapter 1 - General Law of Interstate Compacts
Overview The legal framework governing Compacts encompasses a blend of Compact texts and case law from federal and state courts nationwide. Due to the limited number of court decisions that establish specific legal principles for any given Compact, courts…
Bench Book - 1.1 Who Must Comply with an Interstate Compact?
Interstate Compacts are binding on signatory states, meaning once a state legislature adopts a Compact, it binds all agencies, state officials and citizens to the terms of that Compact. Since the very first Compact case, the U.S. Supreme Court has…
Bench Book - 1.2 Nature of Interstate Compacts
Beginning with the Articles of Confederation, states used Compacts to settle boundary disputes.  In 1918, Oregon and Washington enacted the first Compact solely devoted to joint supervision of an interstate resource (fishing on the Columbia River). Three…
Bench Book - 1.2.1 Interstate Compacts are Formal Agreements Between States
Understanding the legal nature of an interstate Compact begins with this basic point: interstate Compacts are formal agreements between states that exist simultaneously as both (1) statutory law, and (2) contracts between states. The contractual nature…
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
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 - 5.2.1 Liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
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…
Bench Book - 5.2.1.1 No Statutory Right under ICAOS Itself
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…
Bench Book - 5.2.1.2 Constitutional Violations Related to ICAOS
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…
Bench Book - 5.2.1.3 No Supervisor Liability under Section 1983
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…
Displaying 61 - 90 of 548