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 181 - 210 of 286
A receiving state shall supervise an offender transferred under the interstate compact for a length of time determined by the sending state. History: Adopted November 4, 2003, effective August 1, 2004.
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…
(a) Upon a declaration of a national emergency by the President of the United States and/or the declaration of emergency by one or more Governors of the compact member states in response to a crisis, the Commission may, by majority vote, authorize the…
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…
I. Objectives A. This policy advocates the responsible use of alcohol at business functions for the Interstate Commission for Adult Offender Supervision and ensures that ICAOS funds are being expended in a prudent and reasonable manner in the conduct of…
How states should manage absconders apprehended in the receiving state
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…
One of the key features of ICAOS is the Commission’s enforcement tools to promote state compliance with the Compact. The tools provided to the Commission are not directed at compelling offender compliance; such compliance is a matter for the member states…
In addition to civil rights lawsuits, offenders (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 the state law of…
I. Objectives This policy ensures that communications with members of the public are handled equally, devoid of judgment, and are consistent with the business objectives of the Interstate Commission for Adult Offender Supervision. II. Applicability This…
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…
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.…
Whether a California statute classifying offenders as not subject to supervision or revocation are eligible for transfer under the Compact
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
The Interstate Compact for Adult Offender Supervision (ICAOS) seeks to improve outcomes and promote collaboration among member states overseeing the transfer and successful completion of terms for supervised individuals. ICAOS prioritizes rehabilitation,…
Individuals and sex offenders subject to lifetime supervision (CSL)
Whether a receiving state can require relevant documents and return an offender that can no longer be safely supervised
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),…
I. Authority Article IV, of the model compact language, provides for the appointment of a State Council for the implementation, administration, and advocacy of the Compact. This policy ensures compliance with the Statute or Code requirements that each…
States are bound to the Commission’s rules under the terms of the Compact. The rules adopted by the Commission have the force and effect of statutory law and all courts and executive agencies shall take all necessary measures to enforce their application…
In Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), the Supreme Court clarified that a Section 1983 action should not be used to challenge the validity of a criminal judgment. If the alleged civil rights violation would be one that would render a conviction,…
An unfortunate fact pattern that arises from time to time is when a Compact offender 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 or judicial…
I. Authority The Executive Committee is vested with the power to act on behalf of the Interstate Commission during periods when the Interstate Commission is not in session. The Executive Committee oversees the day to day activities managed by the…
Whether officers can arrest and detain compact offenders for probation violations
The federal right in question in a Section 1983 action is typically a constitutional right (for example, the right to equal protection under the law or the right to be free from an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment to the United States…
I. Authority The Executive Committee is vested with the power to adopt a policy on behalf of the Interstate Commission during periods when the Interstate Commission is not in session. The Executive Committee oversees the day-to-day activities managed by…
Whether the offender being in the receiving state prior to investigation is a valid reason for rejection
Whether offenders who are not eligible to transfer under Rule 3.101 or 2.105 are permitted to a discretionary transfer
Whether offenders sentenced to home detention programs are eligible for transfer under the Compact
Whether a receiving state can predicate acceptance to a residential program on the sending state agreeing to retake if the offender fails to complete the program.
Displaying 181 - 210 of 286