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 1 - 30 of 45
Are offenders who are not eligible to transfer under the provisions of Rule 3.101 (a) or Rule 2.105 of the Rules of the Interstate Compact for Adult Offender Supervision permitted to transfer under Rule 3.101 (c) as a discretionary transfer?
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…
(a) A sending state may request transfer of supervision of an offender who does not meet the eligibility requirements in Rule 3.101, where acceptance in the receiving state would support successful completion of supervision, rehabilitation of the offender…
Notwithstanding any other rule, a sentence imposing a period of incarceration on an offender convicted of a new crime which occurred outside the sending state during the compact period may satisfy or partially satisfy the sentence imposed by the sending…
As previously discussed, Rule 5.102 requires the sending state to retake an offender for a new felony or violent crime conviction after the offender’s release from incarceration for the new crime. This may result in a considerable amount of time between…
Published September 2, 2011 At the request of the ICAOS Executive Committee resulting from several recent cases in which courts and other agencies have apparently lacked awareness or ignored the requirements of ICAOS and its rules in particular cases, the…
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…
Transfers fall into one of two categories, (1) mandatory acceptance and (2) discretionary acceptance. The authority to place an offender outside the state rests exclusively with the sending state. See Rule 3.101. The offender has no constitutional right…
2016 DCA Training Institute  Cleveland, Ohio  Compact Office Role:  Presentation & Handout Discretionary Case Review/FY2015 Audit:  Presentation & Handout FY2015 Audit Results for Discretionary Cases ICOTS Reports:  In 2018, the ICOTS…
This on-demand training module explains the processes required for transferring supervision to a receiving state. This includes requirements for a transfer request and for reporting instructions for qualifying offenders. This module is approximately 25…
This on-demand training module reviews key definitions in determining eligibility for transfer, covered offenses, criteria for mandatory and discretionary acceptances as well as qualifying reasons for reporting instructions. This module is approximately…
(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 an offender.  The sending state must notify the receiving state within 15 business days of their issuance of the directive to…
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…
Although receiving states may not impose pre-acceptance requirements on offenders that would violate a state’s obligations under the Compact, the Compact and its rules would not prevent the receiving state from imposing post-acceptance testing…
Eligibility for Compact Transfer and Reporting Instructions These training tools and resources provide information on determining offender eligibility for transfer and qualifications for reporting instructions.   -Key Definitions 'Offender',…
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…
December 1, 2020 There are a couple new dashboards out there for you to explore. One is the Arrival Notice after Departure Notice report. This one is geared towards being able track if and when notice of arrivals are being completed. At first glance it…
ICOTS 16.0 code release is in production on December 7, 2011 and implements the development items described below: Email Notifications The following email notifications work properly: Overdue Transfer Request after Expedited Reporting Instructions…
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…
(a) A misdemeanor offender whose sentence includes 1 year or more of supervision shall be eligible for transfer, provided that all other criteria for transfer, as specified in Rule 3.101, have been satisfied; and the instant offense includes one or more…
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…
At the discretion of the sending state, an offender shall be eligible for transfer of supervision to a receiving state under the compact, and the receiving state shall accept transfer, if the offender: (a) has more than 90 calendar days or an indefinite…
Offenders will sometimes allege that officers were negligent in carrying out their duties under the Compact. For example, in Grayson v. Kansas, No. 06-2375-KHV, 2007 WL 1259990, at *1 (D. Kan. Apr. 30, 2007), a probationer transferred under the Compact…
Whether a receiving state can predicate acceptance to a residential program with a condition obligating the sending state to retake if the offender fails to complete the program. If this condition is acceptable, would the Commission sustain a request to…
Clarification on offenders who are undocumented immigrants.
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…
An offender being in the receiving state prior to investigation as a valid reason for rejection.
Whether an offender whose sentence in Maryland includes a requirement of successful completion of two (2) years in the Home Detention Program (HDP), or other such program in another state, should be considered to be subject to the Interstate Compact for…
Authority to Issue Travel Permits Authority of judges and probation or parole officers to permit certain offenders to travel outside of Texas who, by reason of the type of crime committed or the duration of the travel, are not eligible for transfer of…
Displaying 1 - 30 of 45