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 214
Bench Book - 1.7.2 Eleventh Amendment Issues for Interstate Commissions
The Eleventh Amendment guarantees state sovereign immunity from suit in federal court. The Eleventh Amendment ensures that states retain certain attributes of sovereignty, including sovereign immunity. Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1, 13 (1890). Over the…
Bench Book - 1.9 Recommended Sources of Compact Law and Information
For additional information on interstate Compact law and interstate Compacts generally, see MICHAEL L. BUENGER, JEFFREY B. LITWAK, MICHAEL H. MCCABE & RICHARD L. MASTERS,, THE EVOLVING LAW AND USE OF INTERSTATE COMPACTS 2d ed. (ABA Publ’g 2016) and…
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 - 1.3 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 - 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 - 5.2.1.3 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 - 5.2.1.5 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 - 5.3.1.1 Official Capacity versus Individual Capacity
Eleventh Amendment immunity also extends to state government officers and employees to the extent that they are sued in their official capacity, but not to suits against them in their individual capacity. The distinction between official-capacity and…
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 - 4.4 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…
Bench Book - 1.6 Application of State Law that Conflicts with an Interstate Compact
Where state law and a Compact conflict, courts are required under the Supremacy Clause (for Compacts with consent) and as a matter of contract law to apply the terms and conditions of the Compact to a given case. The fact that a judge may not like the…
Bench Book - 1.7 Special Considerations for Litigation Involving Interstate Commissions
Special Considerations for Litigation Involving Interstate Commissions
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 - 2.2 Why the Interstate Compact for Adult Offender Supervision?
The intent of the ICAOS is not to dictate judicial sentencing or place restrictions on the court’s discretion relative to sentencing. See Scott v. Virginia, 676 S.E.2d 343, 347 (Va. App. 2009). The ICAOS contains no provisions directing judges on…
Bench Book - 2.10 Key Definitions in the ICAOS (Art II)
The following definitions should be of particular interest to judicial authorities: Adult – means both individuals legally classified as adults and juveniles treated as adults by court order, statute, or operation of law. Compact Administrator – means the…
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 - 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…
Bench Book - 3.2.1.2 Eligibility of Offenders, Residency Requirements - General Overview
Transfers fall into one of two categories, (1) mandatory acceptance and (2) discretionary acceptance. The authority to place an offender outside the state rests exclusively with the sending state. See Rule 3.101. The offender has no constitutional right…
Bench Book - 2.3 General Principles Affecting Interstate Movement of Offenders
As a general proposition, convicted persons enjoy no right to interstate travel or a constitutionally protected interest to supervision in another state. See Jones v. Helms, 452 U.S. 412, 418-20 (1981); Griffin v. Wisconsin, 483 U.S. 868, 874 (1987); U.S…
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 - 4.7.3.2.1 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 3-2008
Whether sex offenders can travel out of state once they are transferred to a receiving state
Bench Book - 3.2.1.6.3 What Constitutes Second and Subsequent Conviction of Driving While Impaired?
Particular attention should be paid to offenders convicted of a second or subsequent offense of driving while impaired (DUI and DWI offenses). Because various states’ laws differ widely on what constitutes a second or subsequent conviction, the Commission…
Bench Book - 3.9 Implications, Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA)
The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) and rules promulgated pursuant thereto intended to protect certain health care information from disclosure to authorized persons or entities. Generally, prior to disclosure of health…
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 - 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 - 3.4.2.2 Continuing Jurisdiction over Offenders Between the Sending & Receiving States
Transferring an offender’s supervision pursuant to the Compact does not deprive the sending state of jurisdiction over the offender, unless it is clear from the record that the sending state intended to relinquish jurisdiction. See, e.g., Scott v.…
Bench Book - 2.12 Enforcement of the Compact and its Rules (Art. IX & Art. XII)
One of the key features of ICAOS is the Commission’s enforcement tools to promote state compliance with the Compact. The tools provided to the Commission are not directed at compelling offender compliance; such compliance is a matter for the member states…
Displaying 91 - 120 of 214