Legal >> Advisory Opinions
Register   |  Login

All Advisory Opinions At-A-Glance
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
  
2015 Minimize
2015 Details At Issue Finding
Rule(s):

Opinion #:
Issued:
Requester:
4.101, 4.103(a)(b) & 4.109(a)(b)
1-2015
02.12.15
North Carolina
Whether an offender whose supervision is transferred under the Compact to the state of North Carolina and commits a violation of one or more of the terms and conditions of probation may be subjected to confinement for short periods in lieu of revocation of probation pursuant to a state statute applicable to offenders sentenced in North Carolina? Based upon the terms of the Compact, the above referenced rules and the legal authorities cited, an offender whose supervision is transferred under the Compact to North Carolina and commits a violation of one or more of the terms and conditions of probation may be subjected to confinement for short periods in lieu of revocation of probation pursuant to a state statute applicable to offenders sentenced in North Carolina. ICAOS Rules contemplate that the receiving state is required to “supervise an offender transferred under the Interstate Compact in a manner determined by the receiving state and consistent with the supervision of other similar offenders sentenced in the receiving state.” However, in the interest of fairness to both the offender and the sending state, it seems reasonable to conclude that the imposition of this limited period of incarceration, in lieu of revocation of probation (‘Quick Dip’), would ‘qualify’ as a ‘special condition’ under Rule 4.103, which would require North Carolina to notify the sending state of such condition of supervision ‘at the time of acceptance or during the term of supervision’ as required under this rule.
.
Rule(s):
Opinion #:
Issued:
Requester:
1.101 & 2.106
2-2015
03.12.15
Virginia
Whether an offender who has been granted a conditional pardon in the Commonwealth of Virginia and is transferred to a secure treatment facility in the State of Florida is eligible for transfer under the Interstate Compact for Adult Offender Supervision? Based upon the terms of the Compact, the referenced rules and the legal authorities cited, an offender who has been granted a conditional pardon in the Commonwealth of Virginia and is transferred to a secure treatment facility in the State of Florida is eligible for transfer of supervision under the Interstate Compact for Adult Offender Supervision.
.
Rule(s):
Opinion #:
Issued:
Requester:
1.101 & 2.106
3-2015
12.08.15
Florida
Whether a Maryland offender whose sentence includes a requirement of successful completion of 2 years in the Home Detention Program (HDP), or other such program in another state, should be considered to be subject to the Interstate Compact for Adult Offender Supervision during the period in which the terms of the HDP are in effect? Based upon the terms of the Compact, the referenced rules and the legal authorities cited, an offender who has been convicted of a criminal offense and who is released to the community under a Home Incarceration Program in Maryland, or similar program in another state, and relocates to the State of Florida, or any other compact state, for the purpose of completing 90 days or more of a period of time required by such a program is eligible for transfer of supervision under the Interstate Compact for Adult Offender Supervision.
.
      
2014 Minimize
2014 Details At Issue Finding
Rule(s):

Opinion #:
Issued:
Requester:
4.109-1, 5.101(c) & 5.111
1-2014
02.12.14
Vermont
Whether an offender under supervision in the receiving state, who is charged with a new criminal offense in the receiving state and arrested but released on bail on the new offense, may be subsequently arrested and detained for retaking by the sending state pending the resolution of the new criminal charge. In summary, based upon the terms of the compact, the above referenced rules, and the legal authorities cited herein, since an offender under supervision in the receiving state who is charged with a new criminal offense cannot be retaken until one of the prerequisites of ICAOS Rule 5.101(c) has been satisfied, it is inconsistent with both the ICAOS rules and due process for a warrant to be issued by the sending state or for the offender to be arrested and detained indefinitely, if subsequently released to bail on a new criminal charge. However, once the provisions of Rule 5.101(c) have been satisfied, both arrest and detention of the offender without bail on the compact warrant are required.
.
    
2012 Minimize
2012 Details At Issue Finding
Rule(s):
Opinion #:
Issued:
Requester:
5.108(d)
5-2012
10.11.12
Colorado
Whether ICAOS Rule 5.108(d) permits the use of 2-way video closed circuit television during probable cause hearings where determined by the hearing officer to be necessary to protect a witness from harm which might result from testifying in person. Based upon the referenced guidance in these U.S. Supreme Court decisions, it seems clear that if the Sixth Amendment’s confrontation clause allows the use of 2-way video closed circuit television in the actual trial of a criminal defendant in order to prevent harm to a witness which might result from testifying in person, such a procedure is also permissible, if determined by the hearing officer to be necessary, during the informal inquiry required at the preliminary hearing to determine probable cause under ICAOS Rule 5.108(d). In summary, based upon the terms of the compact, the referenced rules and the legal authorities cited herein, ICAOS Rule 5.108(d) permits the use of 2-way video closed circuit television during probable cause hearings where determined by the hearing officer to be necessary to protect a witness from harm which might result from testifying in person.
.
Rule(s):
Opinion #:
Issued:
Requester:
2.110
4-2012
10.11.12
Minnesota
Whether or not the definition of the term ‘Relocate’ in ICAOS Rule 1.101 and as applicable in ICAOS Rule 2.110, should be interpreted to mean that an offender may not proceed and remain in another state for a cumulative period exceeding 45 days in any 12 month period without being in violation of ICAOS Rule 2.110? While such a practice may be subject to criticism based on public safety concerns, the current definition of ‘Relocate’ does not appear to limit the cumulative number of days within which an offender may be permitted to remain in another state to a total of 45 cumulative days during the same 12 month period.
.
Rule(s):
Opinion #:
Issued:
Requester:
2.110
3-2012
05.14.12
California
Whether an offender whose supervision was never transferred under the Compact and who subsequently absconds supervision is subject to the terms of the Compact and ICAOS rules and may the State from which the offender absconded return the offender under the Compact or is the Extradition Clause of the U.S. Constitution the only means by which such an absconder may be returned? Where jurisdiction over a parolee or probationer is vested in the compact transfer process, as provided under the Compact and ICAOS Rules, the Constitutional provisions concerning extradition need not apply. If the offender was transferred into the state under the provisions of the interstate compact, then the return of the offender, even in the case of an absconder, is properly accomplished pursuant to the provisions of the Compact and its duly authorized rules and regulations.

However, when the offender’s supervision was never transferred to a receiving state under the Compact and no application for transfer or waiver of extradition ever occurred, neither the Compact nor the ICAOS rules apply to this offender who, as a ‘fugitive from justice’ having absconded from probation in California, must be apprehended and returned under the extradition clause of the U.S. Constitution.
.
Rule(s):
Opinion #:
Issued:
Requester:
3.105(a)
2-2012
04.20.12
Arizona
Can a receiving state’s acceptance of an application for transfer of supervision under ICAOS Rule 3.105(a) or approval of reporting instructions be the cause of a release of an offender from a correctional facility which would otherwise keep the offender incarcerated? In summary, based upon the terms of the compact, the referenced rules and the legal authorities cited herein, under ICAOS Rule 3.105(a) neither the acceptance of a request for transfer by a receiving state nor approval of reporting instructions can be the basis for either the determination of whether the sending state will release an offender from a correctional facility or the planned release date.
.
Rule(s):
Opinion #:
Issued:
Requester:
3.101
1-2012
01.30.12
New Jersey
Are persons ‘acquitted’ by reason of insanity under the New Jersey ‘Carter-Krol’ statute eligible for interstate transfer of supervision under the Compact? Based on the facts as set out in the request and considering the provisions of the New Jersey statute, the literal language and plain meaning the applicable definitions and provisions of both the Interstate Compact and ICAOS Rules, and other applicable legal authorities, it is our opinion that persons ‘acquitted’ by reason of insanity under the New Jersey ‘Carter-Krol’ statute are not eligible for interstate transfer of supervision under the Compact.
.
    
2011 Minimize
2011 Details At Issue Finding
Rule(s):
Opinion #:
Issued:
Requester:
5.103-2
2-2011
01.24.11
Colorado
Whether ICAOS Rule 5.103-2 requires the sending state to determine an offender’s status as a ‘violent offender’ as defined in ICAOS Rule 1.101 at the time of the transfer of supervision to the receiving state. The current language of ICAOS Rule 5.103-2(b) does not mandate that the sending state make a determination that an offender is a ‘violent offender’ at the time of transfer of supervision to the receiving state under the terms of the compact.
.
Rule(s):
Opinion #:
Issued:
Requester:
2.105
1-2011
01.24.11
Washington
Whether ICAOS Rule 2.105 applies to misdemeanor violations pertaining to hunting which involve the use of a firearm and whether offenders convicted and sentenced to supervision for such violations are thus subject to transfer under the compact. ICAOS Rule 2.105 applies to all misdemeanor violations, including those pertaining to hunting, which involve the use of a firearm and offenders convicted and sentenced to supervision for such violations are thus subject to transfer under the compact.
.
    
2010 Maximize
    
2009 Maximize
    
2008 Maximize
    
2007 Maximize
    
2006 Maximize
    
2005 Maximize
    
2004 Maximize
    
About ICAOS | Contact ICAOS National Office | Website Map

Annual Report | Bench Book | Bylaws | Rules | Reglas del Pacto

What is ICOTS | Why the Interstate Commission for Adult Offender Supervision Exists | Terms of Use

© 2002 - 2017 Interstate Commission for Adult Offender Supervision