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 215
Bench Book - 5.2.1.5 Official Capacity versus Individual Capacity
Plaintiffs can bring Section 1983 actions against defendants in their official capacity or in their individual capacity. Defendants sued in their official capacity will generally be immune from suits for monetary damages under the Eleventh Amendment to…
Bench Book - 5.2.1.6 Persons Acting under Color of Law
There is rarely any doubt in the case law that probation and parole officials are “persons” and that, in performing their duties, they are acting under “color of law” within the meaning of Section 1983. The law also allows suits against municipalities and…
Bench Book - 5.3.1.1 Official Capacity versus Individual Capacity
Eleventh Amendment immunity also extends to state government officers and employees to the extent that they are sued in their official capacity, but not to suits against them in their individual capacity. The distinction between official-capacity and…
Bench Book - 3.2.1.3 Special Rules for Military Personnel and Their Families
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…
Bench Book - 3.2.1.4 Employment Transfers of Supervised Individuals and Their Families
 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…
Bench Book - 3.5.1 Post-Transfer Change of the Underlying Circumstances
 As discussed, the transfer of supervision for a supervised individual is mandatory in some circumstances. Receiving states are required to accept the transfer if the individual meets the eligibility criteria outlined in Rules 3.101 and 3.101-1. As…
Bench Book - 4.1 Status of Supervised Individuals Subject to ICAOS
A key objective of the ICAOS is to facilitate the effective transfer of supervised individuals between states and to manage their return to the sending state through mechanisms other than formal extradition. Consequently, a supervised individual's status…
Bench Book - 4.3.2 Supervised Individuals Convicted of a Violent Crime
At the request of a receiving state, Rule 5.102 requires the sending state to retake a supervised individual 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…
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 - 1.3 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 - 1.7.2 Eleventh Amendment Issues for Interstate Commissions
The Eleventh Amendment guarantees state sovereign immunity from suit in federal court. The Eleventh Amendment ensures that states retain certain attributes of sovereignty, including sovereign immunity. Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1, 13 (1890). Over the…
Bench Book - 1.9 Recommended Sources of Compact Law and Information
For additional information on interstate Compact law and interstate Compacts generally, see Michael L. Buenger, Jeffrey B. Litwak, Michael H. McCabe & Richard L. Masters,, The Evolving Law and Use of Interstate Compacts 2d ed. (ABA Publ’g 2016) and…
Bench Book - 4.9 Revocation or Punitive Action by the Sending State – Conditions
For purposes of revocation or other punitive action, a sending state is required to give the same force and effect to the violation of a condition imposed by the receiving state as if the condition had been imposed by the sending state. Furthermore, the…
Bench Book - 4.4 Arrest and Detention of Supervised Individuals in the Receiving State
The courts have defined the relationship between the sending state and receiving state officials as an agency relationship. Courts recognize that in supervising out-of-state supervised individuals the receiving state acts on behalf of and as an agent of…
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 - 1.6 Application of State Law that Conflicts with an Interstate Compact
Where state law and a Compact conflict, courts are required under the Supremacy Clause (for Compacts with consent) and as a matter of contract law to apply the terms and conditions of the Compact to a given case. The fact that a judge may not like the…
Bench Book - 1.7 Special Considerations for Litigation Involving Interstate Commissions
Special Considerations for Litigation Involving Interstate Commissions
Bench Book - 2.1 History of the Interstate Compact for Probation and Parole (ICPP)
In 1934, Congress authorized the creation of interstate Compacts on crime control, which led to the 1937 Interstate Compact for the Supervision of Parolees and Probationers. Also referred to as the Interstate Compact for Probation and Parole or the…
Bench Book - 2.2 Why the Interstate Compact for Adult Offender Supervision?
The intent of the ICAOS is not to dictate judicial sentencing or place restrictions on the court’s discretion relative to sentencing. See Scott v. Virginia, 676 S.E.2d 343, 347 (Va. App. 2009). The ICAOS contains no provisions directing judges on…
Bench Book - 2.10 Key Definitions in the ICAOS (Art II)
The following definitions should be of particular interest to judicial authorities: Adult – means both individuals legally classified as adults and juveniles treated as adults by court order, statute, or operation of law. Compact Administrator – means the…
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 - 4.7.3.2.1 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…
Bench Book - 3.2.1.2 Eligibility of Supervised Individuals, Residency Requirements - General Overview
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…
Bench Book - 2.3 General Principles Affecting Interstate Movement of Supervised Individuals
As a general proposition, convicted persons enjoy no right to interstate travel or a constitutionally protected interest to supervision in another state. See Jones v. Helms, 452 U.S. 412, 418-20 (1981); Griffin v. Wisconsin, 483 U.S. 868, 874 (1987); U.S…
Advisory Opinion 3-2008
Whether sex offenders can travel out of state once they are transferred to a receiving state
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 - 3.2.1.6.3 What Constitutes Second and Subsequent Conviction of Driving While Impaired?
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…
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 are intended to protect certain healthcare information from disclosure to authorized persons or entities. Generally, prior to disclosure of…
Bench Book - 1.8 Party State, Interstate Commission, and Third-Party Enforcement Compacts
Some Compacts authorize the interstate commission to seek judicial action to enforce the Compact against a party state.  Article XII.C of the ICAOS is a good example. See Interstate Comm’n for Adult Offender Supervision v. Tennessee Bd. of Prob. &…
Bench Book - 3.4.2.2 Continuing Jurisdiction over Supervised Individuals Between the Sending & Receiving States
Transferring an individual’s supervision through the Compact does not deprive the sending state of jurisdiction over the individual unless the record indicates that the sending state intended to relinquish jurisdiction. See, e.g., Scott v. Virginia, 676 S…
Displaying 91 - 120 of 215