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 651
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…
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
Advisory Opinion 8-2005
Whether a receiving state can make a determination of substantial compliance if an offender commits a crime in the receiving state during the period of investigation or has an outstanding warrant
Advisory Opinion HIPAA-2005
Guidance from the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, Office of Civil Rights as to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”) Coverage & Exemptions for the Interstate Compact for Adult Offender Supervision
Advisory Opinion 6-2005
Whether offenders subject to Washington’s “deferred prosecution” statute are eligible for transfer under the Compact
Advisory Opinion 4-2005
Whether offenders who are not eligible to transfer under Rule 3.101 or 2.105 are permitted to a discretionary transfer
Advisory Opinion 2-2005
Whether officers can arrest and detain compact offenders for probation violations
Advisory Opinion 9-2004
Individuals and sex offenders subject to lifetime supervision (CSL)
Advisory Opinion 7-2004
Whether a receiving state can reject a transfer if there are warrants or pending charges in the receiving state
Advisory Opinion MA-2004
Adopting an emergency rule for Massachusetts who had not enacted the Compact
Advisory Opinion 4-2004
Whether an offender subject to a deferred sentence is eligible for transfer under the Compact
Advisory Opinion 1-2019
How states should manage absconders apprehended in the receiving state
2004 Advisory Opinions
ICAOS Advisory Opinions published in 2004
2005 Advisory Opinions
ICAOS Advisory Opinions published in 2005
2006 Advisory Opinions
ICAOS Advisory Opinions published in 2006
Displaying 61 - 90 of 651