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 71
As previously noted, Article I of ICAOS authorizes officers from a sending state to enter a receiving state, or any state where a supervised individual has absconded, for the purpose of retaking. Except for limited exceptions, the decision to retake lies…
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…
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…
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…
ICAOS Rules 4.111 and 5.103 also require sending states to issue nationwide arrest warrants for absconders who fail to return to the sending state in no less than fifteen (15) business days. Warrant requirements apply to supervised individuals who fail to…
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…
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…
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…
Rule 4.107 permits the collection of fees from individuals subject to the Compact. Specifically, Rule 4.107(a), allows the sending state to impose a transfer application fee, while Rule 4.107(b) authorizes the receiving state to impose a supervision fee.…
The ICAOS was written to address problems and complaints with the ICPP. Chief among the problems and complaints were: Lack of state compliance with the terms and conditions of the ICPP; Enforceability of its rules given there was no enforcement mechanism…
As previously discussed, supervised individuals do not have a constitutional right to travel, and states are not constitutionally required to accept supervised individuals from other states. Consequently, the ICAOS is the sole mechanism by which states…
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…
Some federal statutes have their own enforcement mechanism through an express or implied cause of action in the federal statute itself. See Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275 (2001) (applying the test through which a court determines whether a statute…
While the Compact does not create a private right of action, this does not leave supervised individuals without recourse under Section 1983. Instead, their claims must be framed as violations of constitutionally protected rights. There are numerous…
(a) Except as provided in sections (c) & (d), and subject to the exceptions in Rule 3.103 and 3.106, a sending state seeking to transfer a supervised individual to another state shall submit a completed transfer request with all required information…
I. Authorization Article I of the ICAOS BYLAWS provides that, the Commission “is established to fulfill the objectives of the Compact” through “the promulgation of binding rules and operating procedures” governing “oversight and coordination of offender…
Courts and paroling authorities have wide latitude in imposing conditions. Generally, a condition imposed as a part of probation or parole must be reasonably related to the underlying offense, promote the individual’s rehabilitation, not unreasonably…
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…
Is there a standard waiver for a probable cause hearing? No. States should follow the elements of a waiver that inform the supervised individual of the consequences of a waiver in writing to prevent any question as to the voluntary nature of the admission…
Principal among the provisions of the ICAOS are the waiver of formal extradition requirements for returning supervised individuals who violate the terms and condition of their supervision. The ICAOS specifically provides that: The Compacting states…
(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…
Whether Rule 5.108 permits the use of 2-way closed circuit video for conducting probable cause
Whether an offender who has been arrested and released on bail for pending charges in the receiving state may be apprehended and detained for retaking by the sending state pending resolution of the new criminal charge
Whether a receiving state can reject a transfer if there are warrants or pending charges in the receiving state
How states should manage absconders apprehended in the receiving state
Whether offenders who are not eligible to transfer under Rule 3.101 or 2.105 are permitted to a discretionary transfer
Whether an offender is subject to retaking under the compact if a receiving state closes interest in a case pursuant to rule 4.112
Whether the offender being in the receiving state prior to investigation is a valid reason for rejection
Clarification regarding sex offenders living in the receiving state at the time of sentencing and imposing/enforcing special conditions
Whether a receiving state can make a determination of substantial compliance if an offender commits a crime in the receiving state during the period of investigation or has an outstanding warrant
Displaying 31 - 60 of 71