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 31 - 60 of 131
There are several ways a state might waive its Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in federal court. First, immunity can be waived by express state law. It can also be waived by voluntary participation in a federal program that expressly conditions…
State sovereign immunity is, as noted above, the doctrine that prevents a state from being sued in its own courts without its consent. It will generally be a matter of state law, and of course not every state is the same. Many states have narrowed or…
Neither the Eleventh Amendment nor other formulations of sovereign immunity bar a suit against a state in the courts of another state. Nevada v. Hall, 440 U.S. 410 (1979). In Mianecki v. Second Judicial Court of Washoe County, 658 P.2d 422 (Nev. 1983),…
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 monetary 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 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…
ICAOS Advisory Opinions published in 2019
The following key terms and their definitions supplement terms defined by the Compact rules. They should be of special interests to judicial authorities: Abscond means to be absent from the supervised individual’s approved place of residence and…
 Determining eligibility under the Compact involves a multi-faceted analysis, starting with the broad definition of a "supervised individual." According to Rule 1.101, a "supervised individual" is an adult who is placed under supervision due to a criminal…
According to the Commission’s definition of “supervised individual,” the ICAOS can regulate a wide range of adults under supervision. An individual does not need to be on formal "probation" or "parole" to be eligible for transfer and supervision under the…
Transfers are classified into two categories, (1) mandatory acceptance and (2) discretionary acceptance. The authority to transfer a supervised individual to another state lies solely with the sending state. See Rule 3.101. The supervised individual does…
Rule 3.101-1 addresses three categories of military individuals: (1) military personnel, (2) family members living with military personnel; and (3) veterans for medical or mental health services. Military Personnel are eligible for reporting instructions…
 Other circumstances in which a receiving state is mandated to accept supervision include the employment transfer of a supervised individual or the employment transfer of a family member with whom the supervised individual resides. Rule 3.101-1(a)(3) and…
A supervised individual not subject to the ICAOS is not eligible to have their supervision transferred to another state, but neither are they restricted in their travel, except as otherwise ordered by the sentencing court. See Sanchez v. N.J. State Parole…
The ICAOS applies to all individuals who meet the eligibility requirements and are subject to some form of community supervision or corrections. The term "supervised individual" is intentionally broad to accommodate changes in sentencing practices and…
 In addition to traditional cases where an individual is formally adjudicated and placed on supervision, the ICAOS also applies in so-called “suspended sentencing,” “suspended adjudication,” and “deferred sentencing” contexts. Rule 2.106 provides that “…
 Some states may use a “sentencing” option referred to as deferred prosecution. Authorized by state statutes, this option allows the supervised individual to admit to or stipulate the facts of the criminal conduct but defers prosecution contingent upon…
Special attention should be given to individuals convicted of a second or subsequent offense for driving while impaired (DUI and DWI offenses). Because state laws vary significantly in defining what constitutes a second or subsequent conviction, the…
One area for potential confusion centers on the issue of treatment in lieu of supervision or treatment as supervision. In such cases, courts may be inclined to defer sentence and require enrollment in a community-based or in-house treatment program in…
Initiating the Transfer Process
The Commission's rules can significantly affect the time between the final disposition of a case and the supervised individual’s ability to move to another state. Even if the supervised individual is eligible for transfer under the Compact, the court…
 The Commission’s rules provide an “expedited” option, allowing a supervised individual to transfer supervision on a “pending acceptance” basis. To qualify for expedited reporting instructions, both the sending and receiving states must agree that an…
The Commission adopted Rule 3.103 to address situations where individuals, upon sentencing, live in the receiving state and need to relocate before acceptance and receiving reporting instructions. This rule permits a supervised individual who is residing…
A supervised individual who is otherwise eligible for transfer under Rule 3.101 may not be required to submit to psychological testing by the receiving state as a condition for accepting the transfer. Imposing such “pre-acceptance” requirements on…
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…
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…
Displaying 31 - 60 of 131