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 31 - 60 of 548
Bench Book - 3.3.3 Post-Acceptance Testing
While receiving states cannot impose pre-acceptance requirements on supervised individuals that would violate their obligations under the Compact, the Compact and its rules do not prohibit receiving states from imposing post-acceptance testing…
Bench Book - 3.3.4 Transfer of Supervision of Sex Offenders
The Commission recognizes that the transfer of sex offenders is complex due to individual state laws regarding sex offender registries and various residency and employment restrictions. Rule 3.101-3 addresses these challenges in order to promote…
Bench Book - 3.4 Supervision in the Receiving State
Supervision in the Receiving State
Bench Book - 3.4.1 Duration of Supervision
When interpreting the ICAOS and its rules, eligibility for transferring supervision hinges on the nature of the offense, the sentence imposed, and the status of the supervised individual, rather than the duration of supervision remaining under Rule 3.101…
Bench Book - 3.4.2 Type of Supervision in Receiving State
While the sending state has sole authority to determine the duration of supervision, whether through the court’s sentence or by paroling authorities, the receiving state retains discretion over the type of supervision it will provide. Rule 4.101 requires…
Bench Book - 3.4.2.1 Disabled Supervised Individuals
A receiving state is obligated to continue supervising individuals “who become mentally ill or exhibit signs of mental illness or who develop a physical disability while under supervision in the receiving state.” See Rule 2.108. Therefore, it would be…
Bench Book - 3.4.2.2 Continuing Jurisdiction over Supervised Individuals Between the Sending & Receiving States
Transferring an individual’s supervision through the Compact does not deprive the sending state of jurisdiction over the individual unless the record indicates that the sending state intended to relinquish jurisdiction. See, e.g., Scott v. Virginia, 676 S…
Bench Book - 3.5 Other Considerations
Other Considerations
Bench Book - 3.5.1 Post-Transfer Change of the Underlying Circumstances
 As discussed, the transfer of supervision for a supervised individual is mandatory in some circumstances. Receiving states are required to accept the transfer if the individual meets the eligibility criteria outlined in Rules 3.101 and 3.101-1. As…
Bench Book - 3.5.2 Travel Permits
Supervised individuals may be granted travel permits, which are defined as “written permission granted to a supervised individual authorizing travel from one state to another.” See Rule 1.101 Rule 3.110 requires a receiving state to notify the sending…
Bench Book - 5.3.8 Personal Jurisdiction
The Compact necessarily involves supervised individuals 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…
Bench Book - 3.6 Conditions
Conditions
Bench Book - 3.6.1 General Conditions
While a state may be required to accept supervision based on the supervised individual’s eligibility status, the receiving state may determine that certain conditions are necessary at the time of acceptance. The receiving state can only impose conditions…
Bench Book - 3.6.2 Authority to Impose Conditions
Courts and paroling authorities have wide latitude in imposing conditions. Generally, a condition imposed as a part of probation or parole must be reasonably related to the underlying offense, promote the individual’s rehabilitation, not unreasonably…
Bench Book - 3.6.3 Limitations on Conditions
Notwithstanding the authority of the sending and receiving state to impose conditions on a supervised individual, several courts assert that certain conditions – such as banishment from a geographical area – are not appropriate because they interfere with…
Bench Book - 4.7.3.2.2 Probable Cause Hearing Report
Rule 5.108(e) requires the receiving state to prepare a written report of the hearing within 10 business days and to transmit the report along with any evidence or record from the hearing to the sending state. The report must contain (1) the time, date,…
Bench Book - 4.7.3.2.3 Post Probable Cause Hearing
If the hearing officer determines that probable cause exists and the supervised individual has committed the alleged violations, the receiving state may detain the individual in custody pending the outcome of decisions in the sending state. Within 15…
Bench Book - 4.7.3.3 Probable Cause Hearings Waiver
The supervised individual may waive this hearing only if she or he admits to one or more violations of their supervision. See Rule 5.108(b), also Sanders v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 958 A.2d 582 (2008). Waiving the probable cause…
Bench Book - 4.8 Bail Pending Return
A supervised individual subject to retaking proceedings has no right to bail. Rule 5.111 specifically prohibits any court or paroling authority in any state from admitting a supervised individual to bail pending completion of the retaking process,…
Bench Book - 4.9 Revocation or Punitive Action by the Sending State – Conditions
For purposes of revocation or other punitive action, a sending state is required to give the same force and effect to the violation of a condition imposed by the receiving state as if the condition had been imposed by the sending state. Furthermore, the…
Chapter 5 - Liability and Immunity Considerations for Judicial Officers and Employees
Bench Book - 5.1 Introduction
Given the large number of individuals under supervision through the Interstate Compact for Adult Offender Supervision (ICAOS, or the Compact), legal actions against judicial officials, correctional staff, and other administrators of the Compact are…
Bench Book - 5.2 Liability
The two principal pathways through which government officers might face legal liability through their work related to ICAOS are (1) federal civil rights lawsuits under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and (2) state law tort claims. Plaintiffs will also sometimes attempt…
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…
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…
Displaying 31 - 60 of 548