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 papersadvisory opinions, bylaws, policies, Hearing Officer's Guidetraining modulesrules, helpdesk articles and the bench book. All results are cross-referenced with links to make navigation easy and intuitive.

Displaying 1 - 30 of 127
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…
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…
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…
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…
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…
Notwithstanding the authority of the sending and receiving state to impose conditions on an offender, several courts assert that certain conditions – such as banishment from a geographical area – are not appropriate because they interfere with the purpose…
Courts have generally upheld sex offender registration requirements for offenders whose supervision transfers under an interstate Compact so long as such registration requirements are not discriminatory. Thus, a receiving state may impose sex offender…
As the ICAOS governs the movement of offenders and not the terms and conditions of sentencing, the ICAOS rules are silent on the imposition of restitution. This is therefore a matter governed exclusively by the laws of the sending state and the court…
Rule 4.107 authorizes the collection of fees from offenders subject to the Compact. Pursuant to Rule 4.107(a), the sending state may impose a transfer application fee on an offender and according to Rule 4.107(b), the receiving state may impose a…
The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) and rules promulgated pursuant thereto intended to protect certain health care information from disclosure to authorized persons or entities. Generally, prior to disclosure of health…
One of the principal purposes of the ICAOS is to ensure the effective transfer of offenders to other states and to oversee the return of offenders to the sending state through means other than formal extradition. To this end, the status of an offender as…
Waiver of Formal Extradition Proceedings
Principal among the provisions of the ICAOS are the waiver of formal extradition requirements for returning offenders who violate the terms and condition of their supervision. The ICAOS specifically provides that: The Compacting states recognize that…
An offender who absconds from a receiving state is a fugitive from justice. The procedures for returning a fugitive to a demanding state can be affected by the Uniform Extradition and Rendition Act (UERA). Under that act, a fugitive may waive all…
As previously noted, Article I of ICAOS authorizes officers of a sending state to enter a receiving state, or a state to which an offender has absconded, for purposes of retaking an offender. With limited exceptions, the decision to retake an offender…
A receiving state is obligated to report to sending state authorities within 30 calendar days of the discovery or determination that an offender has engaged in behavior requiring retaking. “Behavior requiring retaking” is defined in Rule 1.101 as an act…
At the request of a receiving state, Rule 5.102 requires the sending state to retake an offender convicted of a violent crime. A violent crime is qualified by one of the following four criteria: (1) any crime involving the unlawful exertion of physical…
The courts have defined the relationship between sending state and receiving state officials as an agency relationship. Courts recognize that in supervising out-of-state offenders the receiving state acts on behalf of and as an agent of the sending state…
As previously discussed, Rule 5.102 requires the sending state to retake an offender for a new felony or violent crime conviction after the offender’s release from incarceration for the new crime. This may result in a considerable amount of time between…
Upon receipt of a violation report for an absconding offender, a sending state must issue a national arrest warrant on notification that the offender has absconded. If the absconding offender is apprehended in the receiving state, the sending state shall…
ICAOS Rules 4.111 and 5.103 also require sending states to issue nationwide arrest warrants for absconders who fail to return to the sending state in no less than fifteen (15) business days. Warrant requirements apply to offenders who fail to return to…
Post-Transfer Hearing Requirements
Offenders, including those subject to supervision under the ICAOS, have limited rights. Conditional release is a privilege not guaranteed by the Constitution; it is an act of grace, a matter of pure discretion on the part of sentencing or corrections…
Under the rules of the Commission, a state is not specifically obligated to provide counsel in circumstances of revocation or retaking. However, particularly with regard to revocation proceedings, a state should provide counsel to an indigent offender if…
The ICAOS recognizes that the transfer of supervision (and hence the relocation of an offender) is a matter of privilege subject to the absolute discretion of the sending state and, to a more limited extent, the discretion of the receiving state. Courts…
An offender convicted of a new conviction in the receiving state forming the basis for retaking is not entitled to further hearings, the conviction being conclusive as to the status of the offender’s violations of supervision and the right of the sending…
Where the retaking of an offender may result in revocation of conditional release by the sending state, the offender is entitled to the basic due process considerations that are the foundation of the Supreme Court’s decisions in Morrissey and Gagnon, and…
If the offender is entitled to a probable cause hearing, Rule 5.108(d) defines the offender’s basic rights. However, each state may have procedural variations. Therefore, to the extent that a hearing officer is unclear on the application of due process…
Displaying 1 - 30 of 127