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 127
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 - 2.5 Purpose of the ICAOS
Against this backdrop, concerned parties proposed a new Compact to the states. Defined in Article I, the purpose of the Compact provided: [T]he framework for the promotion of public safety and protect the rights of victims through the control and…
Bench Book - 1.5 Interpretation of Interstate Compacts
Because Compacts are statutes and contracts, courts interpret interstate Compacts in the same manner as interpreting ordinary statutes and by applying contract law principles. PRACTICE NOTE: No court has explained when to apply statutory construction…
Bench Book - 5.2.2 State Tort Claims
In addition to civil rights lawsuits, supervised individuals (and others) sometimes file tort claims related to conduct arising under the Compact. In many cases, some form of immunity will apply, and questions related to immunity will generally turn on…
Bench Book - 5.2.2.2 Tort Claims by Others
An unfortunate fact pattern that arises from time to time is when a Compact supervised individual causes the injury or death of a victim. Victims of those incidents (or their family members or estate) will sometimes raise tort claims against correctional…
Bench Book - 5.3 Immunity and Related Defenses
Under the doctrine of sovereign immunity, the government may not be sued without its consent. The concept flows from the common-law notion that the “the king can do no wrong” and that a lawsuit could not be brought against him in his own courts. Through…
Bench Book - 5.3.1 Eleventh Amendment Immunity
Under the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution, “[t]he Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State…
Bench Book - 5.3.1.2 No Protection for Local Governments
Eleventh Amendment immunity does not extend to the political subdivisions of a state (its municipalities and counties) or to the officers and employees of those subdivisions. Mt. Healthy Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274 (1977). Those…
Bench Book - 5.3.2 State Sovereign Immunity
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…
Bench Book - 5.3.7 The Public Duty Doctrine
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…
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 - 1.2.2 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 - 1.4 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 - 1.4.3 Implications of Congressional Consent
Congressional consent can significantly change the nature of an interstate Compact. “[W]here Congress has authorized the States to enter into a cooperative agreement, and where the subject matter of that agreement is an appropriate subject for…
Bench Book - 4.5 Discretionary Disposition of Violation
As previously discussed, Rule 5.102 requires the sending state to retake a supervised individual for a new felony or violent crime conviction after the individual’s release from incarceration for the new crime. This can lead to a significant delay between…
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 - 2.9 Key Features of the ICAOS
The following are key features of the ICAOS: The creation of a formal Interstate Commission comprised of Commissioners representing each of the member states and vested with full voting rights, the exercise of which is binding on the respective state. The…
Bench Book - 2.11 Interstate Commission
The ICAOS creates an Interstate Commission to oversee the operations of the Compact nationally, enforce its provisions on the member states, and resolve any disputes that may arise between the states. The Commission is comprised of one voting…
Bench Book - 2.11.2 Rulemaking Powers
Among the powers of the Commission, its rulemaking authority is the most distinctive and far-reaching. The rules established by the Commission carry the force of statutory law within member states and must be fully enforced by all state agencies and…
Bench Book - 2.12.2 Judicial Enforcement
The Commission can initiate judicial enforcement by filing a complaint or petition in the appropriate U.S. district court. A member state that loses in any such litigation is required to reimburse the Commission for the costs incurred in prosecuting or…
Bench Book - 3.1 Key Definitions in the Rules
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…
Bench Book - 3.2.1.1 Individuals Covered by the ICAOS
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…
Bench Book - 3.2.1.5 Persons Not Covered by the ICAOS
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…
Bench Book - 3.3 Initiating the Transfer Process
Initiating the Transfer Process
Bench Book - 3.3.2 Pre-Acceptance Testing
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…
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 - 3.4 Supervision in the Receiving State
Supervision in the Receiving State
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…
Displaying 31 - 60 of 127