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 papers, advisory opinions, bylaws, policies, Hearing Officer's Guide, training modules, rules, helpdesk articles and the bench book. All results are cross-referenced with links to make navigation easy and intuitive.

Displaying 1 - 22 of 22
Bench Book - 5.2.1.3 No Supervisor Liability under Section 1983
In general, Section 1983 liability will not be predicated solely on a theory of respondeat superior. For example, a chief probation officer or other supervisor or manager will not automatically be deemed vicariously liable simply because he or she sits…
Bench Book - 5.2.1 Liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
One of the primary vehicles through which officials might be sued for their work related to the Compact is 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Section 1983), a federal statute that creates a cause of action for violations of a person’s civil rights. The statute gives a…
Bench Book - 5.2.1.5 Official Capacity versus Individual Capacity
Plaintiffs can bring Section 1983 actions against defendants in their official capacity or in their individual capacity. Defendants sued in their official capacity will generally be immune from suits for money damages under the Eleventh Amendment to the…
Bench Book - 5.2.1.1 No Statutory Right under ICAOS Itself
The federal right in question in a Section 1983 action is typically a constitutional right (for example, the right to equal protection under the law or the right to be free from an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment to the United States…
Bench Book - 5.2.1.6 Persons Acting under Color of Law
There is rarely any doubt in the case law that probation and parole officials are “persons” and that, in performing their duties, they are acting under “color of law” within the meaning of Section 1983. The law also allows suits against municipalities and…
Bench Book - 5.2.1.4 No Substitute for Appeal or Habeas Corpus
In Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), the Supreme Court clarified that a Section 1983 action should not be used to challenge the validity of a criminal judgment. If the alleged civil rights violation would be one that would render a conviction,…
Bench Book - 5.2.1.2 Constitutional Violations Related to ICAOS
That the Compact itself does not create a private right of action does not mean that offenders subject to it are left without a remedy under Section 1983. Instead, it means that their complaints must be framed as violations of a right enumerated in the…
Bench Book - 5.3.1.2 No Protection for Local Governments
Eleventh Amendment immunity does not extend to the political subdivisions of a state (its municipalities and counties) or to the officers and employees of those subdivisions. Mt. Healthy Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274 (1977). Those…
Bench Book - 1.8 Party State, Interstate Commission, and Third-Party Enforcement Compacts
Some Compacts authorize the interstate commission to seek judicial action to enforce the Compact against a party state. Article XII.C of the ICAOS is a good example. See Interstate Comm’n for Adult Offender Supervision v. Tennessee Bd. of Prob. &…
Bench Book - 5.2.2.2 Tort Claims by Others
An unfortunate fact pattern that arises from time to time is when a Compact offender causes the injury or death of a victim. Victims of those incidents (or their family members or estate) will sometimes raise tort claims against correctional or judicial…
Bench Book - 2.1 History of the Interstate Compact for Probation and Parole (ICPP)
In 1934, Congress authorized the creation of interstate Compacts on crime control, which led to the 1937 Interstate Compact for the Supervision of Parolees and Probationers. Also referred to as the Interstate Compact for Probation and Parole or the…
Bench Book - 4.7.3.2.1 Offender’s Basic Rights at a Probable Cause Hearing
If the offender is entitled to a probable cause hearing, Rule 5.108(d) defines the offender’s basic rights. However, each state may have procedural variations. Therefore, to the extent that a hearing officer is unclear on the application of due process…
Bench Book - 5.2.2.1 Tort Claims by Offenders
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…
Bench Book - 5.3.8 Personal Jurisdiction
The Compact necessarily involves offenders moving across state lines. Therefore, considerations of different courts’ personal jurisdiction over the parties to a suit might come into play. Unfortunately, different courts have reached different results when…
Bench Book - 3.3.4 Transfer of Supervision of Sex Offenders
The Commission recognizes that the transfer of sex offenders is complex due to individual state laws regarding sex offender registries and various residency and employment restrictions. Rule 3.101-3 addresses these challenges in order to promote offender…
Bench Book - 5.3.2 State Sovereign Immunity
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…
Bench Book - 5.3.4 Judicial Immunity
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…
Bench Book - 1.5 Interpretation of Interstate Compacts
Because Compacts are statutes and contracts, courts interpret interstate Compacts in the same manner as interpreting ordinary statutes and by applying contract law principles. PRACTICE NOTE: No court has explained when to apply statutory construction…
Bench Book - 2.7 Adoption and Withdrawal
Like any other interstate Compact, the ICAOS inaugurated when state legislatures passed similar statutes enacting the provisions of the agreement. In the case of the ICAOS, the threshold requirement for activation of the Compact was adoption of the…
Bench Book - 1.4.3 Implications of Congressional Consent
Congressional consent can significantly change the nature of an interstate Compact. “[W]here Congress has authorized the States to enter into a cooperative agreement, and where the subject matter of that agreement is an appropriate subject for…
Bench Book - 4.4 Arrest and Detention of Offenders in the Receiving State
The courts have defined the relationship between sending state and receiving state officials as an agency relationship. Courts recognize that in supervising out-of-state offenders the receiving state acts on behalf of and as an agent of the sending state…
Chapter 5 - Liability and Immunity Considerations for Judicial Officers and Employees
Displaying 1 - 22 of 22