| 2010 | Details | At Issue | Finding |
| Rule(s):
Opinion #:
Date Issued: Requester: | -
4-2010
07.15.2010
West Region
| What is the effect of a Washington statute providing that the Department of Corrections is not authorized to supervise certain offenders who are sentenced to a term of community custody, community placement, or community supervision on supervision cases under the compact. | While the Washington law clearly provides that the DOC is not authorized to supervise any offender “sentenced to a term of community custody, community placement, or community supervision or any probationer unless the offender or probationer is one for whom supervision is required (under this act),” no provision of the statute prohibits a sentencing Court from imposing upon an offender reporting requirements directly to the Court in lieu of the DOC.
This is attributable to a Constitutional concern on the part of the legislature about the ‘separation of powers’ among the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government. However, this discrepancy could result in anomalous cases in which a Court in Washington orders some type of ‘reporting’ to the Court or completion of some behavioral modification or treatment program and that the results are to be submitted directly to the Court rather than the Washington DOC.
Should this occur, such a case would qualify as being ‘supervised’ under the terms of the compact and the rules notwithstanding the fact that the Washington law does not permit the DOC to supervise the offender. See ICAOS Rule 1.101 “Supervision,” also ICAOS Advisory Opinion 3-2005, 9-2004, and 8-2004. |
|
| Rule(s):
Opinion #:
Date Issued: Requester: | 1.101
3-2010
07.22.2010
Missouri
| Whether a California statute effective in 2010 which classifies certain eligible California offenders as not subject to active supervision or revocation of parole has the effect of removing such offenders from the jurisdiction of the ICAOS. | It is still possible that a California Court could order some type of ‘reporting’ directly to the Court or completion of some behavioral modification or treatment program and that the results are to be submitted directly to the Court in lieu of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
Should this occur with regard to an offender who moves to another State, such a case would qualify as being ‘supervised’ under the terms of the compact and the rules notwithstanding the fact that the California law does not permit the offender to be supervised by the DOCR. See ICAOS Rule 1.101 “Supervision,” also ICAOS Advisory Opinion 3-2005, 9-2004, and 8-2004. |
|
| Rule(s):
Opinion #:
Date Issued: Requester: | 4.112 (a)(1)
2-2010
07.15.2010
Arizona
| Does ICAOS Rule 4.112 permit a sending state to advise a receiving state to close interest in a supervision case upon modification of the sentencing order so that the status of the offender no longer qualifies as “supervision” under ICAOS Rule 1.101 but the sending state does not terminate the case. | Whether the sending state refers to its determination to modify the terms of the sentence as a discharge or not, by operation of law, once supervision has ceased in the sending state there is no further basis upon which the receiving state can continue to act as an agent for the sending state to perform supervision on its behalf when no such authority over the offender continues to exist in the sending state. This is consistent with the previous position taken in Advisory Opinion 11-2006 that discharge of the offender under Rule 4.112 (a)(1) is determinative of eligibility for supervision under the compact. |
|
| Rule(s):
Opinion #:
Date Issued: Requester: | 3.101
1-2010
03.08.2010
Arkansas
| Whether a receiving state may require all documents concerning the offender which it considers relevant and the authority to return an offender whom it determines can no longer be safely supervised in that state as conditions precedent to accepting a transfer of supervision of an offender under the compact. | Based upon the terms of the compact, the above referenced rules and the legal authorities cited herein, neither the State of Washington nor any other ICAOS member state may refuse otherwise valid mandatory transfers of supervision under the compact on the basis that additional information concerning the criminal history of these offenders, not required by Rule 3.107 to be furnished, has not been provided or that the State of Washington will be vested with the authority to unilaterally decide when any of these offenders transferred can no longer be safely supervised in the community and that the offender needs to be returned to the sending state in contravention of Rule 5. 103 (a), which requires a showing of a minimum of three (3) significant violations establishing a pattern of non-compliance before retaking by the sending state is required. |
|