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 91 - 120 of 344
Bench Book - 4.7.3 Specific Considerations for Probable Cause Hearings under ICAOS
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…
Bench Book - 4.7.3.1 When a Probable Cause Hearing is Not Required
A supervised individual 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 individual’s violations of supervision and the right…
Bench Book - 4.7.3.2 Probable Cause Hearings when Violations Occurred in another State
Where the retaking of a supervised individual may result in revocation of conditional release by the sending state, the individual is entitled to the basic due process considerations that are the foundation of the Supreme Court’s decisions in Morrissey…
Bench Book - 4.7.3.2.1 Supervised Individual's Basic Rights at a Probable Cause Hearing
Rule 5.108(d) defines the supervised individual’s basic rights for a probable cause hearing. However, each state may have procedural variations. Therefore, to the extent that a hearing officer is unclear on the application of due process procedures in a…
Advisory Opinion 16-2006
Interpretation of physical harm and whether states can consider other criteria such as plea bargains in determining eligibility
Rule 5.103 - Supervised Individual Behavior Requiring Retaking
(a) Upon a request by the receiving state and documentation that the supervised individual’s behavior requires retaking, a sending state shall issue a warrant to retake or order the return of the individual from the receiving state or a subsequent…
Rule 5.103-1 - Mandatory Retaking for Supervised Individuals Who Abscond
(a) Within 15 business days of receipt of an absconder violation report and case closure, the sending state shall issue a warrant and, upon apprehension, file a detainer with the holding facility where the supervised individual is in custody. (b) If a …
Rule 5.103-2 - Mandatory retaking for violent offenders and violent crimes [Repealed]
REPEALED effective March 1, 2014 History: Adopted October 13, 2010, effective March 1, 2011; repealed August 28, 2013, effective March 1, 2014.
Rule 5.104 - Cost of Retaking a Supervised Individual
A sending state shall be responsible for the cost of retaking the supervised individual. History: Adopted November 4, 2003, effective August 1, 2004, amended September 11, 2024, effective November 1, 2024
Rule 5.105 - Time Allowed for Retaking a Supervised Individual
A sending state shall retake a supervised individual within 30 calendar days after the individual has been taken into custody on the sending state’s warrant and is held solely on the sending state’s warrant. History: Adopted November 4, 2003, effective…
Rule 5.106 - Cost of Incarceration in the Receiving State
A receiving state shall be responsible for the cost of detaining the supervised individual in the receiving state pending retaking by the sending state. History: Adopted November 4, 2003, effective August 1, 2004, amended September 11, 2024, effective…
Rule 5.107 - Officers Retaking a Supervised Individual
(a) Officers authorized under the law of a sending state may enter a state where the supervised individual is found and apprehend and retake the individual, subject to this compact, its rules, and due process requirements. (b) The sending state shall be…
Rule 5.108 - Probable Cause Hearing in Receiving State
(a) A supervised individual subject to retaking that may result in a revocation shall be afforded the opportunity for a probable cause hearing before a neutral and detached hearing officer in or reasonably near the place where the alleged violation…
Rule 4.111 - Supervised Individuals Returning to the Sending State
(a) For a supervised individual returning to the sending state, the receiving state shall request reporting instructions, unless the individual is under active criminal investigation or is charged with a subsequent felony or violent crime in the receiving…
Rule 4.112 - Closing of Supervision by the Receiving State
(a) The receiving state may close and cease supervision upon– The date of discharge indicated for the supervised individual at the time of application for supervision unless informed of an earlier or later date by the sending state; Notification to the…
Rule 5.101 - Discretionary Retaking by the Sending State
(a) Except as required in Rules 5.101-1, 5.102, 5.103 and 5.103-1 at its sole discretion, a sending state may order the return of a supervised individual.  The sending state must notify the receiving state within 15 business days of their issuance of the…
Advisory Opinion 2-2007
Whether offenders who seek to reside in federal housing are eligible for transfer under the Compact
Rule 5.109 - Transport of Supervised Individuals
States that are party to this compact shall allow officers authorized by the law of the sending or receiving state to transport supervised individuals through the state without interference. History: Adopted November 4, 2003, effective August 1, 2004,…
ACKNOWLEGEMENTS
Acknowledgements The Commission would like to acknowledge the assistance of all the individuals involved in drafting this book and, more specifically, to the authors and reviewers that took part in the review process. Our sincere gratitude goes to the…
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, like modern Compacts, to resolve inter-colonial disputes, particularly boundary disputes. The colonies and crown employed…
Chapter 1 - General Law of Interstate Compacts
Overview The legal framework governing Compacts encompasses a blend of Compact texts and case law from federal and state courts nationwide. Due to the limited number of court decisions that establish specific legal principles for any given Compact, courts…
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 differs fundamentally from a "uniform law" in its nature and application. Unlike uniform laws, which are not contractual in nature, interstate Compacts are binding agreements between states. A state cannot selectively adopt…
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…
Bench Book - 1.3 Delegation of State Authority to an Interstate Commission
One of the axioms of modern government is a state legislature’s ability to delegate rulemaking power to an administrative body. This delegation of authority extends to the creation of an interstate commission through an interstate Compact. See Hess v.…
Bench Book - 1.4 Congressional Consent Requirement
The ICAOS operates under Congress’ consent in the Crime Control Act of 1934, 4 U.S.C. § 112 (2012).
Bench Book - 1.4.1 When Consent is Required
The Compact Clause of the U.S. Constitution states, “No State shall, without the consent of Congress, . . . enter into any agreement or Compact with another State . . . .” U.S. CONST. art. I, § 10, cl. 3. Though a strict reading of the Compact Clause…
Bench Book - 1.4.2 Withdrawal and Modification of Congressional Consent
Once Congress grants its consent to a Compact, the general view is that it may not be withdrawn. Although the matter has not been resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court, two federal circuit courts of appeal have held that congressional consent, once given, is…
Displaying 91 - 120 of 344