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 181 - 210 of 346
Rule 3.108 - Victims’ right to be heard and comment
(a) When an offender submits a request to transfer to a receiving state or a subsequent receiving state, or to return to a sending state, the victim notification authority in the sending state shall inform victims of the offender of their right to be…
Rule 3.109 - Waiver of extradition
(a) An offender applying for interstate supervision shall execute, at the time of application for transfer, a waiver of extradition from any state to which the offender may abscond while under supervision in the receiving state. (b) States that are party…
Rule 4.101 - Manner and degree of supervision in receiving state
A receiving state shall supervise offenders consistent with the supervision of other similar offenders sentenced in the receiving state, including the use of incentives, corrective actions, graduated responses, and other supervision techniques.…
Rule 4.102 - Duration of supervision in the receiving state
A receiving state shall supervise an offender transferred under the interstate compact for a length of time determined by the sending state. History: Adopted November 4, 2003, effective August 1, 2004.
Rule 4.103 - Conditions of supervision
(a) At the time of acceptance or during the term of supervision, the receiving state may impose a condition on an offender if that condition would have been imposed on an offender sentenced in the receiving state. (b) A receiving state shall notify a…
Rule 4.103-1 - Force and effect of conditions imposed by a receiving state
The sending state shall give the same force and effect to conditions imposed by a receiving state as if those conditions had been imposed by the sending state. History: Adopted October 26, 2004, effective January 1, 2005; amended October 4, 2006,…
Rule 4.104 - Offender registration or DNA testing in receiving or sending state
A receiving state shall require that an offender transferred under the interstate compact comply with any offender registration and DNA testing requirements in accordance with the laws or policies of the receiving state and shall assist the sending state…
Rule 4.105 - Arrival and departure notifications; withdrawal of reporting instructions
(a) Departure notifications—At the time of an offender’s departure from any state pursuant to a transfer of supervision or the granting of reporting instructions, the state from which the offender departs shall notify the intended receiving state, and, if…
Rule 4.107 - Fees
(a) Application fee—A sending state may impose a fee for each transfer application prepared for an offender. (b) Supervision fee— A receiving state may impose a reasonable supervision fee on an offender whom the state accepts for supervision, which shall…
Rule 4.108 - Collection of restitution, fines and other costs
(a) A sending state is responsible for collecting all fines, family support, restitution, court costs, or other financial obligations imposed by the sending state on the offender. (b) Upon notice by the sending state that the offender is not complying…
Rule 4.109 - Violation report(s) requiring retaking
(a) A receiving state shall notify a sending state of an act or pattern of behavior requiring retaking within 30 calendar days of discovery or determination by submitting a violation report. (b) A violation report shall contain– offender’s name and…
Rule 4.109-1 - Authority to arrest and detain
An offender in violation of the conditions of supervision may be taken into custody or continued in custody by the receiving state. History: Adopted October 4, 2006, effective January 1, 2007; amended September 14, 2016, effective June 1, 2017.  
Rule 4.109-2 - Absconding Violation
(a) If there is reasonable suspicion that an offender has absconded, the receiving state shall attempt to locate the offender. Such activities shall include, but are not limited to: Documenting communication attempts directly to the offender, including…
Rule 4.110 - Transfer to a subsequent receiving state
(a) At the request of an offender for transfer to a subsequent receiving state, and with the approval of the sending state, the sending state shall prepare and transmit a request for transfer to the subsequent state in the same manner as an initial…
Bench Book - 4.7.3.2.2 Probable Cause Hearing Report
Rule 5.108(e) requires the receiving state to prepare a written report of the hearing within 10 business days and to transmit the report along with any evidence or record from the hearing to the sending state. The report must contain (1) the time, date…
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…
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 - 5.2.1.4 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 - 5.2.1.5 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 - 5.2.1.6 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 - 5.2.2 State Tort Claims
In addition to civil rights lawsuits, offenders (and others) sometimes file tort claims related to conduct arising under the Compact. In many cases some form of immunity will apply, and questions related to immunity will generally turn on the state law of…
Displaying 181 - 210 of 346