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 61 - 90 of 118
Bench Book - 5.3.1 Eleventh Amendment Immunity
Under the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution, “[t]he Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State…
Bench Book - 3.8.1 Restitution
As the ICAOS governs the movement of offenders and not the terms and conditions of sentencing, the ICAOS rules are silent on the imposition of restitution. This is therefore a matter governed exclusively by the laws of the sending state and the court…
Bench Book - 1.2.2 Compacts Are Not Uniform Laws
An interstate Compact is not a “uniform law” as typically construed and applied. Unlike interstate Compacts, uniform laws are not contracts; a state adopting an interstate Compact may not select provisions of an interstate Compact to adopt; and, a state…
Bench Book - 3.3.2 Pre-Acceptance Testing
An offender who is otherwise eligible for transfer under Rule 3.101 may not be required to submit to psychological testing by the receiving state as a condition of acceptance of the transfer. Such “pre-acceptance” requirements imposed on otherwise…
Bench Book - 5.2.1.2 Constitutional Violations Related to ICAOS
That the Compact itself does not create a private right of action does not mean that offenders subject to it are left without a remedy under Section 1983. Instead, it means that their complaints must be framed as violations of a right enumerated in the…
Bench Book - 1.4.3 Implications of Congressional Consent
Congressional consent can significantly change the nature of an interstate Compact. “[W]here Congress has authorized the States to enter into a cooperative agreement, and where the subject matter of that agreement is an appropriate subject for…
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 - 4.7.1 General Considerations
Offenders, including those subject to supervision under the ICAOS, have limited rights. Conditional release is a privilege not guaranteed by the Constitution; it is an act of grace, a matter of pure discretion on the part of sentencing or corrections…
Bench Book - 4.7.2 Right to Counsel
Under the rules of the Commission, a state is not specifically obligated to provide counsel in circumstances of revocation or retaking. However, particularly with regard to revocation proceedings, a state should provide counsel to an indigent offender if…
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 - 1.2.3 Compacts Are Not Administrative Agreements
Compacts differ from administrative agreements in two principal ways. First, states, as sovereigns, have inherent authority to enact Compacts. See Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 37 U.S. (12 Pet.) 657, 725 (1838). Thus, states do not need any express…
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 - 1.7.1 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…
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, similar to modern Compacts, to resolve intercolonial disputes, particularly boundary disputes. The colonies and crown…
Bench Book - 2.12.1 General Principles of Enforcement
The Commission possesses significant enforcement authority against states deemed in default of their obligations under the Compact. The decision to impose a penalty for noncompliance rests with the Commission as a whole or its executive committee acting…
Bench Book - 2.12 Enforcement of the Compact and its Rules (Art. IX & Art. XII)
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…
Bench Book - 1.5 Interpretation of Interstate Compacts
Because Compacts are statutes and contracts, courts interpret interstate Compacts in the same manner as interpreting ordinary statutes and by applying contract law principles. PRACTICE NOTE: No court has explained when to apply statutory construction…
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…
Bench Book - 5.3.1.2 No Protection for Local Governments
Eleventh Amendment immunity does not extend to the political subdivisions of a state (its municipalities and counties) or to the officers and employees of those subdivisions. Mt. Healthy Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274 (1977). Those…
Chapter 3 - The ICAOS Implications for the Courts
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…
Chapter 1 - General Law of Interstate Compacts
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…
Bench Book - 3.2.1.4 Employment Transfers of Offenders and Their Families
The other circumstances in which a receiving state is mandated to accept supervision include the employment transfer of an offender and the employment transfer of a family member with whom the offender resides with to another state. Rule 3.101-1(a)(3) and…
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…
Bench Book - 2.11.1 Primary Powers of the Commission
The powers of the Commission appear in Article V of the ICAOS. Among its primary powers, the Commission: Promulgates rules, which are binding on the states and have the force and effect of statutory law within each member state; Oversees, supervises, and…
Bench Book - 3.2.1.5 Persons Not Covered by the ICAOS
An offender 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 Bd., 845 A.…
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 - 2.12.2 Judicial Enforcement
The Commission can initiate judicial enforcement by filing a complaint or petition in the appropriate U.S. district court. A member state that loses in any such litigation is required to reimburse the Commission for the costs incurred in prosecuting or…
Bench Book - 3.1 Key Definitions in the Rules
The following key terms and their definitions supplement terms defined by the Compact. They should be of special interests to judicial authorities: Abscond means to be absent from the offender’s approved place of residence and employment; and failing to…
Bench Book - 1.4.2 Withdrawal and Modification of Congressional Consent
Once Congress grants its consent to a Compact, the general view is that it may not be withdrawn. Although the matter has not been resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court, two federal circuit courts of appeal have held that congressional consent, once given, is…
Bench Book - 5.2.2.2 Tort Claims by Others
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…
Displaying 61 - 90 of 118