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 121 - 150 of 548
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…
Bench Book - 5.2.1.4 No Substitute for Appeal or Habeas Corpus
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,…
Bench Book - 5.2.1.5 Official Capacity versus Individual Capacity
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…
Bench Book - 5.2.1.6 Persons Acting under Color of Law
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…
Chapter 1: Definitions - Rule 1.101
*/ As used in these rules, unless the context clearly requires a different construction- Abscond – means to be absent from the supervised individual's approved place of residence and employment; and failing to comply with reporting requirements. '…
Rule 2.101 - Involvement of Interstate Compact Offices
(a) Acceptance, rejection or termination of supervision of a supervised individual under this compact shall be made only with the involvement and concurrence of a state’s compact administrator or the compact administrator’s designated deputies. (b) All…
Rule 2.102 - Data collection and reporting [Expired; See history]
(a) As required by the compact, and as specified by the operational procedures and forms approved by the commission, the states shall gather, maintain and report data regarding the transfer and supervision of offenders supervised under this compact. (b)…
Rule 2.103 - Dues Formula
(a) The commission shall determine the formula to be used in calculating the annual assessments to be paid by states. Public notice of any proposed revision to the approved dues formula shall be given at least 30 calendar days prior to the Commission…
Rule 2.104 - Forms
(a) States shall use the forms or electronic information system authorized by the commission. (b) Section (a) shall not be construed to prohibit written, electronic or oral communication between compact offices. History: Adopted November 3, 2003,…
Rule 2.105 - Misdemeanants
(a) A misdemeanor supervised individual whose sentence includes 1 year or more of supervision shall be eligible for transfer, provided that all other criteria for transfer, as specified in Rule 3.101, have been satisfied; and the instant offense includes…
Rule 2.106 - Supervised Individuals Subject to Deferred Sentences
Supervised individuals subject to deferred sentences are eligible for transfer of supervision under the same eligibility requirements, terms, and conditions applicable to all other supervised individuals under this compact. Persons subject to supervision…
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 - 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)
Displaying 121 - 150 of 548