This Bench Book exists as a resource for judges, court staff, and for compact administrators. The Interstate Compact for Adult Offender Supervision (ICAOS) is the current interstate compact between the states governing the movement of supervised individuals. A prior interstate compact, the Interstate Compact for the Supervision of Parolees and Probationers (ICPP), was first enacted in 1937, and governed movement of supervised individuals until 2002, when the current compact became effective. The Interstate Commission first drafted this Bench Book in 2005 and updates it regularly to incorporate new commission rules, advisory opinions, white papers, court decisions, and best practices in the implementation of ICAOS.
This Bench Book provides an overview of the ICAOS and explains the commission’s rules, advisory opinions, white papers, and court decisions that interpret and apply the ICAOS. Since the inception of the ICAOS, there have been hundreds of court decisions that mention the states’ use of the ICAOS, but surprisingly few have interpreted the compact and the commission’s rules. This welcome dearth of judicial interpretation is a testament to the drafters of the compact providing clear authority and standards; the many members and leaders of the interstate commission over the years; the commission’s staff and legal counsel in maintaining clear rules, advisory opinions, white papers, and informal advice to the states; and, of course, to the work of the states in thoughtfully implementing the compact and commission’s rules.
This Bench Book also includes an overview of legal principles for interstate compacts. This important section of the Bench Book provides context for understanding the ICAOS as a single law of all the states, and for its interpretation, and application. One important principle is that a court should consider the decisions from other courts that involve the same legal issue to ensure a single interpretation of the ICAOS. Having multiple different interpretations of the same provision in the ICAOS or the commission’s rules would be dysfunctional to the states and supervised individuals, which would not know which interpretation to apply.
Many court decisions cite to this Bench Book as guidance or persuasive authority. We have reviewed those decisions with an eye toward learning what courts value in this resource and updating and adding new content that we believe courts will find useful and to help ensure a continued uniform application of the ICAOS among the states and territories. E.g., Iwanicki v. Pa. Parole Bd., No. 97 D.C. 2024, 2025 Pa. Commw. Unpub. LEXIS 275, at *19, n.16, *21, *22–23 (Pa. Commw. Ct. June 4, 2025); McGrew v. City of Portland, No. 3:23-cv-01082-HZ, 2024 WL 326597 (Jan. 24, 2024); Longson v. Nebraska, No. 4:18CV3036, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46874, at *2 n.3 (D. Neb. Mar. 22, 2018); State v. Brown, 140 A.3d 768, 776, 777 n.6 (R.I. 2016); Goe v. Comm’r of Prob., 46 N.E.3d 997, 1002–03 (Mass. 2016).
We offer a few notes here about the Bench Book that we believe are important for its users.
The Bench Book cites to many court decisions that involve the prior ICPP. This is intentional. The overall goal and purpose of the ICAOS of streamlining movement of supervised individuals has not changed from the ICPP. The ICPP decisions cited here involve principles that remain relevant to the ICAOS or provide historical context for the purpose in which an ICPP case is cited. Generally, court decisions prior to 2003 involve the ICPP, decisions in the mid-2000s may involve either the ICPP or the ICAOS, and decisions beginning in the late-2000s generally involve only the ICAOS.
The Bench Book cites many unreported decisions involving the ICAOS, ICPP, and related law. These decisions provide important illustrations and examples even if they are not binding, especially because there are few cases that interpret the ICAOS and the commission’s rules. Additionally, court rules differ concerning the citation of unreported cases, so courts that allow such citation may review and decide the precedential value of such decisions.
The Bench Book necessarily cites to decisions of many different courts—federal, state, and territorial. As explained in the overview of interstate compact law, a court that needs to interpret or apply a provision of the ICAOS or the commission’s rules should be familiar with the way that other courts have interpreted or applied the same provision to ensure a uniform application of the compact throughout the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the territories that have enacted the compact.