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

Issued:
Requester:
At Issue:

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?

Finding:

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.

Issued:
Requester:
At Issue:

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?

Finding:

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.

Issued:
Requester:
At Issue:

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?

Finding:

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.

Issued:
Requester:
At Issue:

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.

Finding:

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.

Issued:
Requester:
At Issue:

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.

Finding:

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.

Issued:
Requester:
At Issue:

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?

Finding:

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.

Issued:
Requester:
At Issue:

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?

Finding:

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.

Issued:
Requester:
At Issue:

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?

Finding:

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.