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 625
Bench Book - 5.3.1.2 No Protection for Local Governments
Eleventh Amendment immunity does not extend to the political subdivisions of a state (its municipalities and counties) or to the officers and employees of those subdivisions. Mt. Healthy Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274 (1977). Those…
Bench Book - 5.3.1.3 Waiver of Eleventh Amendment Immunity
There are several ways a state might waive its Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in federal court. First, immunity can be waived by express state law. It can also be waived by voluntary participation in a federal program that expressly conditions…
Bench Book - 5.3.2 State Sovereign Immunity
State sovereign immunity is, as noted above, the doctrine that prevents a state from being sued in its own courts without its consent. It will generally be a matter of state law, and of course not every state is the same. Many states have narrowed or…
Bench Book - 5.3.3 Immunity in Another State's Courts
Neither the Eleventh Amendment nor other formulations of sovereign immunity bar a suit against a state in the courts of another state. Nevada v. Hall, 440 U.S. 410 (1979). In Mianecki v. Second Judicial Court of Washoe County, 658 P.2d 422 (Nev. 1983),…
Bench Book - 5.3.4 Judicial Immunity
Judges have absolute immunity from liability as long as they are performing a judicial act and there is not a clear absence of all jurisdiction. Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978). A judge is not deprived of absolute immunity from liability for…
Bench Book - 5.3.5 Prosecutorial Immunity
Like judges, prosecutors have absolute immunity from lawsuits seeking money damages. Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1986). That immunity allows prosecutors to exercise the independence of judgment essential to their work—and to avoid the deluge of…
Bench Book - 5.3.6 Qualified Immunity
Government officials sued in their individual capacity have what is known as qualified immunity from suits for damages to the extent that their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person…
Bench Book - 5.3.7 The Public Duty Doctrine
Some states recognize the so-called public duty doctrine—the idea that a government official has no legal duty to protect an individual citizen from harm caused by a third person. The rule recognizes the limited resources of law enforcement and a refusal…
Bench Book - 5.3.8 Personal Jurisdiction
The Compact necessarily involves offenders moving across state lines. Therefore, considerations of different courts’ personal jurisdiction over the parties to a suit might come into play. Unfortunately, different courts have reached different results when…
Advisory Opinion 1-2015
Whether a transferred offender who commits a violation may be subjected to confinement for short periods in lieu of revocation
Advisory Opinion 2-2015
Whether an offender granted a conditional pardon and moved to a secure treatment facility is eligible for transfer under the Compact
Advisory Opinion 3-2015
Whether offenders sentenced to home detention programs are eligible for transfer under the Compact
Advisory Opinion 1-2014
Whether an offender who has been arrested and released on bail for pending charges in the receiving state may be apprehended and detained for retaking by the sending state pending resolution of the new criminal charge
Advisory Opinion 5-2012
Whether Rule 5.108 permits the use of 2-way closed circuit video for conducting probable cause
Advisory Opinion 4-2012
Whether a state can permit an offender to proceed to another state for multiple periods of time, never exceeding 45 consecutive days in any single occurrence
Advisory Opinion 3-2012
Whether an offender whose supervision was never transferred and who subsequently absconds supervision is subject to retaking under the terms of the Compact
Advisory Opinion 2-2012
Whether the receiving state's acceptance of a transfer request or reporting instructions creates the 'planned release' date
Advisory Opinion 1-2012
Effect of New Jersey statute on acquitted persons by reason of insanity
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
Displaying 1 - 30 of 625