Interstate Commission for Adult Offender Supervision

Ensuring Public Safety for the 21st Century

Advisory Opinions

books on a table in a library under a blue silhouette

The Advisory Opinions are part of CORE (Compact Online Reference Encyclopedia).

Interpretation of ICAOS Rules

Any state may submit an informal written request to the Executive Director for assistance in interpreting the rules of this compact. The Executive Director may seek the assistance of legal counsel, the Executive Committee, or both, in interpreting the rules. The Executive Committee may authorize its standing committees to assist in interpreting the rules. Interpretations of the rules shall be issued in writing by the Executive Director or the Executive Committee and shall be circulated to all of the states. Advisory Opinion Policy

Download PDF version of all ICAOS Advisory Opinions. (Take 5 seconds to generate)

Disclaimer: Interstate Compact Legal Advisory Opinions

ICAOS Rule 6.101 authorizes the issuance of legal advisory opinions, allowing any state to submit an informal written request to the executive director for assistance in interpreting the rules of the Compact. The executive director, in turn “may seek the assistance of legal counsel, the executive committee, or both, in interpreting the rules.” Rule 6.101(c) further specifies that any ensuing advisory opinion shall be issued in writing and circulated to all states.

The Interstate Commission for Adult Offender Supervision’s legal advisory opinions are issued to clarify, support, and enforce the rules and regulations governing the Compact. They play a crucial role in assisting states, agencies, and officials in making informed decisions, fostering compliance, and promoting a uniform understanding of the Compact’s provisions and rules. Advisory opinions offer guidance on the application and meaning of specific rules within the Compact framework and provide insight into how the rules should be understood and implemented in specific contexts. This ensures consistency and fairness in their application.

The purpose of the Commission’s advisory opinions is to address specific questions or situations, and to help interpret the Compact’s rules in a practical and effective manner. They serve as a resource for applying the Compact’s rules consistently. They do not create new rules or alter existing ones. By providing authoritative guidance, these opinions help ensure uniform application of the Compact across jurisdictions, thereby enhancing the overall effectiveness and reliability of the Compact.

2004 Advisory Opinions Next »

Advisory Opinions at a Glance

Opinion Number	Description	Rules	Keywords
1-2019	Managing previously reported absconders apprehended in the receiving state	4.112, 5.101-1	Absconder, ICOTS, Pending Charges
3-2015	Whether Maryland’s Home Detention Program qualifies as supervision under the Interstate Compact	1.101, 2.106	Deferred Sentence, Eligibility
2-2015	Eligibility of Conditional Pardon Transferred to an Out of State Secure Treatment Facility	1.101, 2.106	Deferred Sentence, Eligibility
1-2015	Subjecting a transferred supervised individual to short-term confinement for probation violations in North Carolina as the receiving state	4.101, 4.103, 4.109	Sanctions, Violations
5-2012	Whether Rule 5.108 permits the use of 2-way closed circuit video for conducting probable cause	5.108	Probable Cause, Video Hearings
3-2012	Whether an offender whose supervision was never transferred and who subsequently absconds supervision is subject to retaking under the terms of the Compact	2.110, 3.101, 3.109	Absconder, Extradition
2-2012	Whether the receiving state's acceptance of a transfer request or reporting instructions creates the 'planned release' date	3.105	Prerelease
1-2012	Effect of New Jersey statute on acquitted persons by reason of insanity	1.101, 3.101	Eligibility
1-2011	Whether rule 2.105 applies to hunting violations involving the use of a firearm	2.105	Misdemeanor Offenses
4-2010	The effect of a Washington statute that prohibits certain offenders from being under supervision	1.101, 4.101	Supervision
3-2010	Whether a California statute classifying offenders as not subject to supervision or revocation are eligible for transfer under the Compact	1.101	Eligibility
3-2008	Whether sex offenders can travel out of state once they are transferred to a receiving state	4.101	Sex Offender, Travel Permit
2-2007	Whether offenders who seek to reside in federal housing are eligible for transfer under the Compact	3.101	Eligibility, Section 8 Housing
16-2006	Interpretation of physical harm and whether states can consider other criteria such as plea bargains in determining eligibility	2.105	Eligibility, Misdemeanor Offenses, Physical Harm
14-2006	Imposing fees on offenders transferring through the Compact	4.107	Supervision Fees
7-2006	Whether the second or subsequent misdemeanor DUI meets ICAOS eligibility	2.105	DUI Offenses, Eligibility, Misdemeanor Offenses
5-2006	Whether a receiving state can exceed the 45 day rule to determine if a supervision plan is valid for sex offenders	3.104, 4.101, 4.103	Investigation, Sex Offender
HIPAA-2005	Guidance from the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, Office of Civil Rights as to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”) Coverage & Exemptions for the Interstate Compact for Adult Offender Supervision
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	1.101, 3.101	Pending Charges, Substantial Compliance
6-2005	Whether offenders subject to Washington’s “deferred prosecution” statute are eligible for transfer under the Compact	1.101, 2.106	Deferred Prosecution, Eligibility
4-2005	Whether offenders who are not eligible to transfer under Rule 3.101 or 2.105 are permitted to a discretionary transfer	2.105, 2.110, 3.101, 3.101-2	Discretionary Transfer, Eligibility
MA-2004	Adopting an emergency rule for Massachusetts who had not enacted the Compact	Article XI Compact Statute
9-2004	Individuals and sex offenders subject to lifetime supervision (CSL)	1.101, 3.101, 5.103	Eligibility
7-2004	Whether a receiving state can reject a transfer if there are warrants or pending charges in the receiving state	3.101	Pending Charges, Substantial Compliance