Compact Online Reference Encyclopedia (CORE)

Looking for information on a specific topic, training, rule, or process? Through one search here, you can find the information you need from ICAOS’ white papersadvisory opinions, bylaws, policies, Hearing Officer's Guidetraining modulesrules, helpdesk articles and the bench book. All results are cross-referenced with links to make navigation easy and intuitive.

Displaying 1 - 30 of 44
Whether offenders who are not eligible to transfer under Rule 3.101 or 2.105 are permitted to a discretionary transfer
State sovereign immunity is, as noted above, the doctrine that prevents a state from being sued in its own courts without its consent. It will generally be a matter of state law, and of course not every state is the same. Many states have narrowed or…
(a) A sending state may request transfer of supervision of an offender who does not meet the eligibility requirements in Rule 3.101, where acceptance in the receiving state would support successful completion of supervision, rehabilitation of the offender…
Notwithstanding any other rule, a sentence imposing a period of incarceration on an offender convicted of a new crime which occurred outside the sending state during the compact period may satisfy or partially satisfy the sentence imposed by the sending…
Welcome Join us September 21-29, 2021 The 2021 ABM has been moved to a virtual platform to enable more staff to attend and eliminate lingering issues with travel restrictions and public health concerns. For the details behind this decision, read the…
As previously discussed, Rule 5.102 requires the sending state to retake an offender for a new felony or violent crime conviction after the offender’s release from incarceration for the new crime. This may result in a considerable amount of time between…
Published September 2, 2011 At the request of the ICAOS Executive Committee resulting from several recent cases in which courts and other agencies have apparently lacked awareness or ignored the requirements of ICAOS and its rules in particular cases, the…
Neither the Eleventh Amendment nor other formulations of sovereign immunity bar a suit against a state in the courts of another state. Nevada v. Hall, 440 U.S. 410 (1979). In Mianecki v. Second Judicial Court of Washoe County, 658 P.2d 422 (Nev. 1983),…
Judges have absolute immunity from liability as long as they are performing a judicial act and there is not a clear absence of all jurisdiction. Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978). A judge is not deprived of absolute immunity from liability for…
Transfers fall into one of two categories, (1) mandatory acceptance and (2) discretionary acceptance. The authority to place an offender outside the state rests exclusively with the sending state. See Rule 3.101. The offender has no constitutional right…
This on-demand training module explains the processes required for transferring supervision to a receiving state. This includes requirements for a transfer request and for reporting instructions for qualifying offenders. This module is approximately 25…
This on-demand training module includes: Retaking & Warrant Overview Discretionary Retaking & Mandatory Retaking
This on-demand training module reviews key definitions in determining eligibility for transfer, covered offenses, criteria for mandatory and discretionary acceptances as well as qualifying reasons for reporting instructions. This module is approximately…
(a) Except as required in Rules 5.101-1, 5.102, 5.103 and 5.103-1 at its sole discretion, a sending state may order the return of an offender.  The sending state must notify the receiving state within 15 business days of their issuance of the directive to…
As discussed, the transfer of supervision of an offender is mandatory in some circumstances. Receiving states are required to accept transfer if the offender is eligible under Rules 3.101 and 3.101-1. As discussed in Chapter 4 regarding return of…
Although receiving states may not impose pre-acceptance requirements on offenders that would violate a state’s obligations under the Compact, the Compact and its rules would not prevent the receiving state from imposing post-acceptance testing…
Overview The legal environment for Compacts involves an amalgamation of Compact texts and case law from federal and state courts throughout the country. Because there are relatively few court decisions establishing legal principles in any particular court…
Ms. Blazier has served in her role with the Indiana Office of Court Services (IOCS) for 12 years. She continues to represent IOCS and the Justice Services Division in a professional manner when working with other states and outside agencies. She is…
One area for potential confusion centers on the issue of treatment in lieu of supervision or treatment as supervision. In such cases, courts may be inclined to defer sentence and require enrollment in a community based or in-house treatment program in…
(a) A misdemeanor offender whose sentence includes 1 year or more of supervision shall be eligible for transfer, provided that all other criteria for transfer, as specified in Rule 3.101, have been satisfied; and the instant offense includes one or more…
Interstate Compacts are binding on signatory states, meaning once a state legislature adopts a Compact, it binds all agencies, state officials and citizens to the terms of that Compact. Since the very first Compact case, the U.S. Supreme Court has…
At the discretion of the sending state, an offender shall be eligible for transfer of supervision to a receiving state under the compact, and the receiving state shall accept transfer, if the offender: (a) has more than 90 calendar days or an indefinite…
Whether a receiving state can predicate acceptance to a residential program on the sending state agreeing to retake if the offender fails to complete the program.
Offenders will sometimes allege that officers were negligent in carrying out their duties under the Compact. For example, in Grayson v. Kansas, No. 06-2375-KHV, 2007 WL 1259990, at *1 (D. Kan. Apr. 30, 2007), a probationer transferred under the Compact…
Whether an undocumented immigrant is subject to the Compact
As a general proposition, convicted persons enjoy no right to interstate travel or a constitutionally protected interest to supervision in another state. See Jones v. Helms, 452 U.S. 412, 418-20 (1981); Griffin v. Wisconsin, 483 U.S. 868, 874 (1987); U.S…
Whether the offender being in the receiving state prior to investigation is a valid reason for rejection
Whether offenders sentenced to home detention programs are eligible for transfer under the Compact
Authority to issue travel permits
Rules governing retaking an offender under the compact of the Interstate Commission for Adult Offender Supervision
Displaying 1 - 30 of 44