Transferring an individual’s supervision through the Compact does not deprive the sending state of jurisdiction over the individual unless the record indicates that the sending state intended to relinquish jurisdiction. See, e.g., Scott v. Virginia, 676 S.E.2d 343, 347 (Va. App. 2009); State v. Lemoine, 831 P.2d 1345 (Kan. Ct. App. 1992). While the receiving state exercises jurisdiction over the individual for supervision purposes, the sending state retains jurisdiction for probation or parole revocation. See ICAOS Advisory Opinion 3-2008.

The Compact does not give the receiving state the authority to revoke the probation or parole imposed by authorities in a sending state, nor can a receiving state decide not to provide supervision once the individual transfers in accordance with the ICAOS rules. See Scott v. Virginia supra. at 347; See also, Peppers v. State, 696 So. 2d 444 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997). A receiving state may independently initiate criminal proceedings against supervised individuals who commit crimes while in that state. See Rule 5.101-1. However, the receiving state cannot revoke the probation or parole imposed by the sending state as part of the individual's conviction for these crimes. Additionally, whether the sending state continues to exercise jurisdiction over a supervised individual or has relinquished or forfeited that jurisdiction is a matter determined solely by the sending state.