Rule 4.107 authorizes the collection of fees from offenders subject to the Compact. Pursuant to Rule 4.107(a), the sending state may impose a transfer application fee on an offender and according to Rule 4.107(b), the receiving state may impose a supervision fee on an offender. Generally, such fees are authorized by state statutory or state administrative rule. See Holloway v. Cline, 154 P.3d 557 (Kan. App. 2007) (Imposition of a $25.00 per month interstate Compact supervision fee without providing a hearing before assessing such fee does not violate an offender’s Constitutional rights to due process of law). It is important to note that once an offender transfers supervision to a receiving state, the authority of a sending state to collect any type of supervision fee ceases, to the extent such fees are truly supervision fees. Thus, while a sending state may impose a supervision fee for the period in which the offender is actually in that state, the sending state may not continue to impose such a fee on the offender under the guise of continuing to “supervise” the offender’s progress in the receiving state.

A sending state may impose other fees on offenders so long as those fees are not related to supervision. For example, a sending state could impose an annual fee on sex offenders so long as that fee had “no direct relationship to the supervision of such offenders.” See ICAOS Advisory Opinion 14-2006.

In the particulars leading to AO 14-2006, a state statute authorized collection of an annual fee from sex offenders for the purposes of maintaining the state’s sex offender registry and victim notification systems. The fee was an annual assessment distinguishable from an on-going fee related to the actual supervision of an offender. However, the ICAOS also concluded that the sending state could impose such a fee, but that the sending state alone bore responsibility for collecting the fee and could not transfer collection responsibility to the receiving state.