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 1 - 30 of 72
Advisory Opinion 7-2004
Whether a receiving state can reject a transfer if there are warrants or pending charges in the receiving state
Rule 5.101-1 - Pending Felony or Violent Crime Charges
Notwithstanding any other rule, if a supervised individual is charged with a subsequent felony or violent crime, the individual shall not be retaken or ordered to return until criminal charges have been dismissed, sentence has been satisfied, or the…
Advisory Opinion 1-2014
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
Advisory Opinion 8-2005
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
On-Demand - ICAOS 201 Retaking & Warrants
This on-demand training module includes: Retaking & Warrant Overview Discretionary Retaking & Mandatory Retaking
Rule 5.102 - Mandatory Retaking for a New Felony or New Violent Crime Conviction
(a) Upon a request from the receiving state, a sending state shall retake a supervised individual from the receiving state or a subsequent receiving state after the individual’s conviction for a new felony offense or new violent crime and: completion of a…
Advisory Opinion 1-2012
Effect of New Jersey statute on acquitted persons by reason of insanity
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 - 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…
Rule 5.101-2 - Discretionary Process for Disposition of Violation in the Sending State for a New Crime Conviction
Notwithstanding any other rule, a sentence imposing a period of incarceration on a supervised individual convicted of a new crime which occurred outside the sending state during the compact period may satisfy or partially satisfy the sentence imposed by…
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…
Advisory Opinion 9-2004
Individuals and sex offenders subject to lifetime supervision (CSL)
Bench Book - 1.7.1 Relief Must Be Consistent with the Compact
In Texas v. New Mexico, the Supreme Court sustained exceptions to a Special Master’s recommendation to enlarge the Pecos River Compact Commission, holding that one consequence of a Compact becoming “a law of the United States” is that “no court may order…
Advisory Opinion 1-2019
How states should manage absconders apprehended in the receiving state
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 - 4.7.3.1 When a Probable Cause Hearing is Not Required
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…
Bench Book - 3.4.1 Duration of Supervision
When interpreting the ICAOS and its rules, eligibility for transferring supervision hinges on the nature of the offense, the sentence imposed, and the status of the supervised individual, rather than the duration of supervision remaining under Rule 3.101…
Definition - Resident
Resident – means a person who has resided in a state for at least 1 year continuously and immediately prior to either the supervision start date or sentence date for the original offense for which transfer is being requested; and intends that such state…
Extradition Officials Guide
This guide supports extradition professionals managing the return of supervised individuals who transfer to another state through the Interstate Compact. Topics addressed within the new guide include: Who is subject to the Compact; Differences between…
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…
On-Demand - ICAOS 204 Probable Cause Hearings-Rule 5.108
When possibly subject to revocation in the sending state for violations (excluding new convictions) committed in the receiving state, compact offenders are ENTITLED to a probable cause hearing near where the alleged violations occurred prior to retaking.…
Jail Officials Guide
This guide supports jail officials managing detention and disposition of individuals on interstate compact supervision. Topics addressed within the new guide include: Wh transfers through the Compact; How does a supervised individual apply for an…
Bench Book - 2.7 Adoption and Withdrawal
Like other interstate Compacts, the ICAOS inaugurated when state legislatures enacted statutes that adopted the provisions of the agreement. For the ICAOS, the Compact required adoption by thirty-five states to become active. Unlike some Compacts that are…
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 - 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,…
INTERSTATE COMPACT LAW - A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE
Interstate Compacts are not new legal instruments. Compacts derive from the nation’s colonial past where states utilized agreements, like modern Compacts, to resolve inter-colonial disputes, particularly boundary disputes. The colonies and crown employed…
White Paper - State Liability: Why Your State Can Be Sanctioned Upon Violation of the Compact or the ICAOS Rules
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…
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 - 5.3.3 Immunity in Another State's Courts
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),…
White Paper - Discharge of Sentences in Lieu of Retaking is a Violation of the Compact and the ICAOS Rules
Published November 1, 2013 The ICAOS Executive Committee has requested this ‘white paper’ resulting from several recent cases in which courts, prosecuting attorneys, and probation and parole officers have apparently lacked awareness or ignored the…
Displaying 1 - 30 of 72