As discussed in §§ 1.2 and 1.3 supra, supervised individuals do not have a constitutional right to travel, and states are not constitutionally required to accept supervised individuals from other states and the ICAOS is the sole mechanism by which states can regulate the interstate movement of adults under community supervision. A state that repeals the ICAOS forfeits its participation in this formal regulatory system. Without the compact, relocation decisions default entirely to each state’s statutory framework and administrative discretion.
In practical terms, a non-member state could prohibit or severely restrict relocation by imposing conditions such as residency bans for individuals with certain offenses, mandatory in-state sentencing requirements, or supervision eligibility criteria that exclude nonresidents. For example, some states condition community supervision on the availability of approved housing or local treatment providers—requirements that could effectively preclude transfer from another jurisdiction absent compact protections. For example, Florida law requires an approved release plan before certain individuals may be released to community supervision. (Fla. Stat. § 947.1405 (Conditional Release Program)). Others maintain statutes that limit acceptance of individuals convicted elsewhere unless the receiving authority affirmatively contracts with the sending state. Such provisions, while lawful outside the compact, could functionally prohibit relocation into the non-member state. (See, Colo. Rev. Stat. § 17-27.1-101(3)(b) (2002)).
Participation in the ICAOS, therefore, guarantees a uniform process for interstate movement and ensures parity in supervision resources, access to services, and due process safeguards for out-of-state individuals. In contrast, non-participation exposes both sending and receiving jurisdictions to inconsistent legal treatment, potential liability, and unregulated population movement.
PRACTICE NOTE