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 91 - 120 of 343
Bench Book - 4.7.3 Specific Considerations for Probable Cause Hearings under ICAOS
The ICAOS recognizes that the transfer of supervision (and hence the relocation of an offender) is a matter of privilege subject to the absolute discretion of the sending state and, to a more limited extent, the discretion of the receiving state. Courts…
Bench Book - 4.7.3.1 When a Probable Cause Hearing is Not Required
An offender convicted of a new conviction in the receiving state forming the basis for retaking is not entitled to further hearings, the conviction being conclusive as to the status of the offender’s violations of supervision and the right of the sending…
Bench Book - 4.7.3.2 Probable Cause Hearings when Violations Occurred in another State
Where the retaking of an offender may result in revocation of conditional release by the sending state, the offender is entitled to the basic due process considerations that are the foundation of the Supreme Court’s decisions in Morrissey and Gagnon, and…
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…
Advisory Opinion 16-2006
Interpretation of physical harm and whether states can consider other criteria such as plea bargains in determining eligibility
Rule 5.103 - Offender behavior requiring retaking
(a) Upon a request by the receiving state and documentation that the offender’s behavior requires retaking, a sending state shall issue a warrant to retake or order the return of an offender from the receiving state or a subsequent receiving state within…
Rule 5.103-1 - Mandatory retaking for offenders who abscond
(a) Within 15 business days of receipt of an absconder violation report and case closure, the sending state shall issue a warrant and, upon apprehension of the offender, file a detainer with the holding facility where the offender is in custody. (b) If an…
Rule 5.103-2 - Mandatory retaking for violent offenders and violent crimes [Repealed]
REPEALED effective March 1, 2014 History: Adopted October 13, 2010, effective March 1, 2011; repealed August 28, 2013, effective March 1, 2014.
Rule 5.104 - Cost of retaking an offender
A sending state shall be responsible for the cost of retaking the offender. History: Adopted November 4, 2003, effective August 1, 2004.
Rule 5.105 - Time allowed for retaking an offender
A sending state shall retake an offender within 30 calendar days after the offender has been taken into custody on the sending state’s warrant and the offender is being held solely on the sending state’s warrant. History: Adopted November 4, 2003,…
Rule 5.106 - Cost of incarceration in receiving state
A receiving state shall be responsible for the cost of detaining the offender in the receiving state pending the offender’s retaking by the sending state. History: Adopted November 4, 2003, effective August 1, 2004.
Rule 5.107 - Officers retaking an offender
(a) Officers authorized under the law of a sending state may enter a state where the offender is found and apprehend and retake the offender, subject to this compact, its rules, and due process requirements. (b) The sending state shall be required to…
Rule 5.108 - Probable cause hearing in receiving state
(a) An offender subject to retaking that may result in a revocation shall be afforded the opportunity for a probable cause hearing before a neutral and detached hearing officer in or reasonably near the place where the alleged violation occurred. (b) No…
Rule 4.111 - Offenders returning to the sending state
(a) For an offender returning to the sending state, the receiving state shall request reporting instructions, unless the offender is under active criminal investigation or is charged with a subsequent felony or violent crime in the receiving state. The…
Rule 4.112 - Closing of supervision by the receiving state
(a) The receiving state may close its supervision of an offender and cease supervision upon– The date of discharge indicated for the offender at the time of application for supervision unless informed of an earlier or later date by the sending state;…
Rule 5.101 - Discretionary retaking by the sending state
(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…
Advisory Opinion 2-2007
Whether offenders who seek to reside in federal housing are eligible for transfer under the Compact
Rule 5.109 - Transport of offenders
States that are party to this compact shall allow officers authorized by the law of the sending or receiving state to transport offenders through the state without interference. History: Adopted November 4, 2003, effective August 1, 2004.
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…
Bench Book - 1.2.3 Compacts Are Not Administrative Agreements
Compacts differ from administrative agreements in two principal ways. First, states, as sovereigns, have inherent authority to enact Compacts. See Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 37 U.S. (12 Pet.) 657, 725 (1838). Thus, states do not need any express…
Bench Book - 1.3 Delegation of State Authority to an Interstate Commission
One of the axioms of modern government is a state legislature’s ability to delegate rulemaking power to an administrative body. This delegation of authority extends to the creation of an interstate commission through an interstate Compact. See Hess v.…
Bench Book - 1.4 Congressional Consent Requirement
The ICAOS operates under Congress’ consent in the Crime Control Act of 1934, 4 U.S.C. § 112 (2012).
Bench Book - 1.4.1 When Consent is Required
The Compact Clause of the U.S. Constitution states, “No State shall, without the consent of Congress, . . . enter into any agreement or Compact with another State . . . .” U.S. CONST. art. I, § 10, cl. 3. Though a strict reading of the Compact Clause…
Bench Book - 1.4.2 Withdrawal and Modification of Congressional Consent
Once Congress grants its consent to a Compact, the general view is that it may not be withdrawn. Although the matter has not been resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court, two federal circuit courts of appeal have held that congressional consent, once given, is…
Displaying 91 - 120 of 343