Interstate Commissioner for Audlt Offender Supervision (ICAOS) Logo

RULE 5.105 – TIME ALLOWED FOR RETAKING AN OFFENDER - MIDWEST

Drake Greeott

Drake Greeott Photo

Full Name: Drake Greeott

Title: Web Development Manager

Commission Title: Web Development Manager

Role Group: Other

Agency: IT

Unit:

Address:

Colorado

Region:

Office Email: icaos@interstatecompact.org

Email: dgreeott@interstatecompact.org

Office Phone:

Direct Phone: 859-721-1055

Cell/Mobile:

Fax 1:

Fax 2:

Website: https://interstatecommission-my.sharepoint.com/personal/dgreeott_interstatecompact_org/

Note:

Drake Greeott began working with the Interstate Commission for Adult Offender Supervision in 2021. As Web Development Manager, Drake works on developing new web solutions to improve the Interstate Commission for Adult Offender Supervision while focusing on creating the best possible user interface and experience for the Commission. On a daily basis, Drake is changing website content, assisting with the helpdesk tickets, and managing improvements to the Interstate Commission for Adult Offender Supervision website. Drake is a graduate from the Metropolitan State University of Denver where he received a Bachelor of Science in Computer Information System with concentrations in Application Development and International Business.  

Submitted by dgreeott on 7:53pm EDT

RULE 5.105 – TIME ALLOWED FOR RETAKING AN OFFENDER

Rules Committee Does Not Recommend Proposal for Adoption

 

A sending state shall retake an offender within 30 calendar days after notification that the offender has been taken into custody on the sending state’s warrant and the offender is being held solely on the sending state’s warrant. If probable cause is requested, retaking shall occur within 30 calendar days of satisfying Rule 5.108, as applicable.

 

Justification Provided by Minnesota:  

There is often confusion as to when the 30 days allowed for retaking actually begins.  Per the rule as it is currently written, it would indicate that the 30 days begins upon apprehension or release of other holds, regardless of when the sending state was actually notified of the availability.  It would be more logical to start the 30 day timeframe when the sending state is actually notified, which can sometimes be days after availability as the sending state cannot start to make arrangements for transport until they are aware that they need to.  Whether contracting with transport companies or making arrangements within the state, the full 30 days is needed in some cases and just a couple of days could make a big difference in maintaining compliance to the 30 day timeframe if states consider the 30 days to begin upon apprehension/availability rather than notification.

Additionally, many jail/sheriff staff are not aware that Probable Cause Proceedings are occurring and are not aware that a client may not be available even though the only hold is the sending state warrant.  Adding language regarding PC proceedings would make entities aware that other circumstances could affect availability.  This would alleviate the issues of attorneys/judges/sheriff staff incorrectly interpreting this rule and potentially releasing a client because the client wasn’t picked up within the 30 day window as they believed it to be.