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 151 - 180 of 548
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…
Bench Book - 5.2.2 State Tort Claims
In addition to civil rights lawsuits, supervised individuals (and others) sometimes file tort claims related to conduct arising under the Compact. In many cases, some form of immunity will apply, and questions related to immunity will generally turn on…
Bench Book - 5.2.2.1 Tort Claims by Supervised Individuals
Supervised individuals will sometimes allege that officers were negligent in carrying out their duties under the Compact. For example, in Grayson v. Kansas, No. 06-2375-KHV, 2007 WL 1259990, at *1 (D. Kan. Apr. 30, 2007), a probationer transferred under…
Bench Book - 5.2.2.2 Tort Claims by Others
An unfortunate fact pattern that arises from time to time is when a Compact supervised individual causes the injury or death of a victim. Victims of those incidents (or their family members or estate) will sometimes raise tort claims against correctional…
Bench Book - 5.2.3 Claims under the Compact Itself
Some federal statutes have their own enforcement mechanism through an express or implied cause of action in the federal statute itself. See Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275 (2001) (applying the test through which a court determines whether a statute…
Bench Book - 5.3 Immunity and Related Defenses
Under the doctrine of sovereign immunity, the government may not be sued without its consent. The concept flows from the common-law notion that the “the king can do no wrong” and that a lawsuit could not be brought against him in his own courts. Through…
Bench Book - 5.3.1 Eleventh Amendment Immunity
Under the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution, “[t]he Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State…
Bench Book - 5.3.1.1 Official Capacity versus Individual Capacity
Eleventh Amendment immunity also extends to state government officers and employees to the extent that they are sued in their official capacity, but not to suits against them in their individual capacity. The distinction between official-capacity and…
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 monetary 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…
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 - 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…
Displaying 151 - 180 of 548