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 151 - 180 of 362
Bench Book - 4.7.3.2.3 Post Probable Cause Hearing
If the hearing officer determines that probable cause exists and the offender has committed the alleged violations, the receiving state must detain the offender in custody pending the outcome of decisions in the sending state. Within 15 business days of…
Bench Book - 4.7.3.3 Probable Cause Hearings Waiver
The offender may waive this hearing only if she or he admits to one or more violations of their supervision. See Rule 5.108(b), also Sanders v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 958 A.2d 582 (2008). The effect of waiving the probable cause…
Bench Book - 4.8 Bail Pending Return
An offender subject to retaking proceedings has no right to bail. Rule 5.111 specifically prohibits any court or paroling authority in any state to admit an offender to bail pending completion of the retaking process, individual state law to the contrary…
Bench Book - 4.9 Revocation or Punitive Action by the Sending State – Conditions
For purposes of revocation or other punitive action, a sending state is required to give the same force and effect to the violation of a condition imposed by the receiving state as if the condition had been imposed by the sending state. Furthermore, the…
Chapter 5 - Liability and Immunity Considerations for Judicial Officers and Employees
Bench Book - 5.1 Introduction
With thousands of offenders under supervision under the Interstate Compact for Adult Offender Supervision (ICAOS, or the Compact), lawsuits against the judicial officials, correctional officials, and others who administer the Compact are inevitable. This…
Bench Book - 5.2 Liability
The two principal pathways through which government officers might face legal liability through their work related to ICAOS are (1) federal civil rights lawsuits under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and (2) state law tort claims. Plaintiffs will also sometimes attempt…
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 - 5.2.1.1 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 - 5.2.1.2 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…
Advisory Opinion 2-2015
Whether an offender granted a conditional pardon and moved to a secure treatment facility is eligible for transfer under the Compact
Advisory Opinion 3-2015
Whether offenders sentenced to home detention programs are eligible for transfer under the Compact
Advisory Opinion 1-2014
Whether an offender who has been arrested and released on bail for pending charges in the receiving state may be apprehended and detained for retaking by the sending state pending resolution of the new criminal charge
Advisory Opinion 5-2012
Whether Rule 5.108 permits the use of 2-way closed circuit video for conducting probable cause
Advisory Opinion 4-2012
Whether a state can permit an offender to proceed to another state for multiple periods of time, never exceeding 45 consecutive days in any single occurrence
Advisory Opinion 3-2012
Whether an offender whose supervision was never transferred and who subsequently absconds supervision is subject to retaking under the terms of the Compact
Advisory Opinion 2-2012
Whether the receiving state's acceptance of a transfer request or reporting instructions creates the 'planned release' date
Advisory Opinion 1-2012
Effect of New Jersey statute on acquitted persons by reason of insanity
Advisory Opinion 1-2011
Whether rule 2.105 applies to hunting violations involving the use of a firearm
Advisory Opinion 4-2010
The effect of a Washington statute that prohibits certain offenders from being under supervision
Advisory Opinion 3-2010
Whether a California statute classifying offenders as not subject to supervision or revocation are eligible for transfer under the Compact
Advisory Opinion 2-2010
Whether a sending state can close interest in a case if the offender's status no longer qualifies under the definition of supervision
Advisory Opinion 1-2010
Whether a receiving state can require relevant documents and return an offender that can no longer be safely supervised
MISSION & ACKNOWLEGEMENTS
Mission Statement The Interstate Commission for Adult Offender Supervision will guide the transfer of offenders in a manner that promotes effective& supervision strategies consistent with public safety, offender accountability, and victims’ rights.…
INTERSTATE COMPACT LAW - A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE
Interstate Compacts are not new legal instruments. Compacts derive from the nation’s colonial past where states utilized agreements, similar to modern Compacts, to resolve intercolonial disputes, particularly boundary disputes. The colonies and crown…
Chapter 1 - General Law of Interstate Compacts
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…
Bench Book - 1.1 Who Must Comply with an Interstate Compact?
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…
Bench Book - 1.2 Nature of Interstate Compacts
Beginning with the Articles of Confederation, states used Compacts to settle boundary disputes. In 1918, Oregon and Washington enacted the first Compact solely devoted to joint supervision of an interstate resource (fishing on the Columbia River). Three…
Bench Book - 1.2.1 Interstate Compacts are Formal Agreements Between States
Understanding the legal nature of an interstate Compact begins with this basic point: interstate Compacts are formal agreements between states that exist simultaneously as both (1) statutory law, and (2) contracts between states. The contractual nature…
Bench Book - 1.2.2 Compacts Are Not Uniform Laws
An interstate Compact is not a “uniform law” as typically construed and applied. Unlike interstate Compacts, uniform laws are not contracts; a state adopting an interstate Compact may not select provisions of an interstate Compact to adopt; and, a state…
Displaying 151 - 180 of 362