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 127
Bench Book - 3.4.2.2 Continuing Jurisdiction over Offenders Between the Sending & Receiving States
Transferring an offender’s supervision pursuant to the Compact does not deprive the sending state of jurisdiction over the offender, unless it is clear from the record that the sending state intended to relinquish jurisdiction. See, e.g., Scott v.…
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 of an offender is mandatory in some circumstances. Receiving states are required to accept transfer if the offender is eligible under Rules 3.101 and 3.101-1. As discussed in Chapter 4 regarding return of…
Bench Book - 3.5.2 Temporary Travel Permits
Offenders may be granted travel permits. A travel permit is the “written permission granted to an offender authorizing the offender to travel from one state to another.” See Rule 1.101. Rule 3.110 requires a receiving state to provide notification to a…
Bench Book - 3.5.3 Victims' Rights
    The ICAOS specifically creates distinct rights for victims of crime and certain obligations on courts and supervising authorities with respect to those rights. While the Compact statute itself is general on the rights, the commission’s rules spell out…
Bench Book - 3.6 Conditions
Conditions
Bench Book - 3.6.1 General Conditions
Although a state may be required to accept supervision given the offender’s eligibility status, the receiving state may determine that conditions are necessary at the time of acceptance. The receiving state can only impose conditions that it would impose…
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 offender rehabilitation, not unreasonably impinge on…
Bench Book - 3.6.3 Limitations on Conditions
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…
Bench Book - 3.7 Sex Offender Registration
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…
Bench Book - 3.8 Financial Obligations
Financial Obligations
Bench Book - 3.8.1 Restitution
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…
Bench Book - 3.8.2 Fees
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…
Bench Book - 3.9 Implications, Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA)
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…
Chapter 4 - Returning Offenders to the Sending State
Bench Book - 4.1 Status of Offenders Subject to ICAOS
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…
Bench Book - 4.2 Waiver of Formal Extradition Proceedings
Waiver of Formal Extradition Proceedings
Bench Book - 4.2.1 Waiver of Extradition under the ICAOS
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…
Bench Book - 4.2.2 Uniform Extradition Act Considerations
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…
Bench Book - 4.3 Retaking
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…
Bench Book - 4.3.1 Violation Reports Requiring Retaking
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…
Bench Book - 4.3.2 Offenders Convicted of a Violent Crime
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…
Bench Book - 4.4 Arrest and Detention of Offenders in the Receiving State
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…
INTERSTATE COMPACT LAW - A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE
Interstate Compacts are not new legal instruments. Compacts derive from the nation’s colonial past where states utilized agreements, similar to modern Compacts, to resolve intercolonial disputes, particularly boundary disputes. The colonies and crown…
Chapter 1 - General Law of Interstate Compacts
Overview The legal environment for Compacts involves an amalgamation of Compact texts and case law from federal and state courts throughout the country. Because there are relatively few court decisions establishing legal principles in any particular court…
Bench Book - 1.1 Who Must Comply with an Interstate Compact?
Interstate Compacts are binding on signatory states, meaning once a state legislature adopts a Compact, it binds all agencies, state officials and citizens to the terms of that Compact. Since the very first Compact case, the U.S. Supreme Court has…
Bench Book - 1.2 Nature of Interstate Compacts
Beginning with the Articles of Confederation, states used Compacts to settle boundary disputes. In 1918, Oregon and Washington enacted the first Compact solely devoted to joint supervision of an interstate resource (fishing on the Columbia River). Three…
Bench Book - 1.2.1 Interstate Compacts are Formal Agreements Between States
Understanding the legal nature of an interstate Compact begins with this basic point: interstate Compacts are formal agreements between states that exist simultaneously as both (1) statutory law, and (2) contracts between states. The contractual nature…
Bench Book - 1.2.2 Compacts Are Not Uniform Laws
An interstate Compact is not a “uniform law” as typically construed and applied. Unlike interstate Compacts, uniform laws are not contracts; a state adopting an interstate Compact may not select provisions of an interstate Compact to adopt; and, a state…
Bench Book - 1.2.3 Compacts Are Not Administrative Agreements
Compacts differ from administrative agreements in two principal ways. First, states, as sovereigns, have inherent authority to enact Compacts. See Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 37 U.S. (12 Pet.) 657, 725 (1838). Thus, states do not need any express…
Displaying 61 - 90 of 127