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 91 - 120 of 343
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…
Some states recognize the so-called public duty doctrine—the idea that a government official has no legal duty to protect an individual citizen from harm caused by a third person. The rule recognizes the limited resources of law enforcement and a refusal…
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…
Whether a transferred offender who commits a violation may be subjected to confinement for short periods in lieu of revocation
Whether an offender granted a conditional pardon and moved to a secure treatment facility is eligible for transfer under the Compact
Whether offenders sentenced to home detention programs are eligible for transfer under the Compact
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 Rule 5.108 permits the use of 2-way closed circuit video for conducting probable cause
Whether a state can permit an offender to proceed to another state for multiple periods of time, never exceeding 45 consecutive days in any single occurrence
Whether an offender whose supervision was never transferred and who subsequently absconds supervision is subject to retaking under the terms of the Compact
Whether the receiving state's acceptance of a transfer request or reporting instructions creates the 'planned release' date
Effect of New Jersey statute on acquitted persons by reason of insanity
Whether rule 2.105 applies to hunting violations involving the use of a firearm
The effect of a Washington statute that prohibits certain offenders from being under supervision
Rule 5.108(d) defines the supervised individual’s basic rights for a probable cause hearing. However, each state may have procedural variations. Therefore, to the extent that a hearing officer is unclear on the application of due process procedures in a…
Rule 5.108(e) requires the receiving state to prepare a written report of the hearing within 10 business days and to transmit the report along with any evidence or record from the hearing to the sending state. The report must contain (1) the time, date,…
If the hearing officer determines that probable cause exists and the supervised individual has committed the alleged violations, the receiving state may detain the individual in custody pending the outcome of decisions in the sending state. Within 15…
The supervised individual may waive this hearing only if she or he admits to one or more violations of their supervision. See Rule 5.108(b), also Sanders v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 958 A.2d 582 (2008). Waiving the probable cause…
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,…
For purposes of revocation or other punitive action, a sending state is required to give the same force and effect to the violation of a condition imposed by the receiving state as if the condition had been imposed by the sending state. Furthermore, the…
Given the large number of individuals under supervision through the Interstate Compact for Adult Offender Supervision (ICAOS, or the Compact), legal actions against judicial officials, correctional staff, and other administrators of the Compact are…
The two principal pathways through which government officers might face legal liability through their work related to ICAOS are (1) federal civil rights lawsuits under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and (2) state law tort claims. Plaintiffs will also sometimes attempt…
One of the primary vehicles through which officials might be sued for their work related to the Compact is 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Section 1983), a federal statute that creates a cause of action for violations of a person’s civil rights. The statute gives a…
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…
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…
Whether receiving states can denying reporting instructions based on an invalid plan of supervision
Whether offenders who seek to reside in federal housing are eligible for transfer under the Compact
Interpretation of physical harm and whether states can consider other criteria such as plea bargains in determining eligibility
Imposing fees on offenders transferring through the Compact
Displaying 91 - 120 of 343