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 papersadvisory opinions, bylaws, policies, Hearing Officer's Guidetraining modulesrules, helpdesk articles and the bench book. All results are cross-referenced with links to make navigation easy and intuitive.

Displaying 121 - 150 of 266
I. Mission To provide an independent, objective assurance that there is adherence to Commission rules, policies, and procedures. II. Objectives The objective of the ICAOS Compliance Audit Program is to provide independent assurance to the Commission that…
Proposed new rules or amendments to the rules shall be adopted by majority vote of the members of the Interstate Commission in the following manner. (a) Proposed new rules and amendments to existing rules shall be submitted to the Interstate Commission…
Principal among the provisions of the ICAOS are the waiver of formal extradition requirements for returning offenders who violate the terms and condition of their supervision. The ICAOS specifically provides that: The Compacting states recognize that…
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,…
In addition to traditional cases where an offender is formally adjudicated and placed on supervision, the ICAOS also applies in so-called “suspended sentencing,” “suspended adjudication,” and “deferred sentencing” contexts. Rule 2.106 provides that “…
An offender who absconds from a receiving state is a fugitive from justice. The procedures for returning a fugitive to a demanding state can be affected by the Uniform Extradition and Rendition Act (UERA). Under that act, a fugitive may waive all…
An offender who is otherwise eligible for transfer under Rule 3.101 may not be required to submit to psychological testing by the receiving state as a condition of acceptance of the transfer. Such “pre-acceptance” requirements imposed on otherwise…
Whether offenders who are not eligible to transfer under Rule 3.101 or 2.105 are permitted to a discretionary transfer
At the discretion of the sending state, an offender shall be eligible for transfer of supervision to a receiving state under the compact, and the receiving state shall accept transfer, if the offender: (a) has more than 90 calendar days or an indefinite…
Rules governing transfer of supervision under the compact of the Interstate Commission for Adult Offender Supervision
Rules governing supervision in the receiving state under the compact of the Interstate Commission for Adult Offender Supervision
Rules governing retaking an offender under the compact of the Interstate Commission for Adult Offender Supervision
Rules governing dispute resolution and interpretation of rules under the compact of the Interstate Commission for Adult Offender Supervision
(a) Through the office of a state’s compact administrator, states shall attempt to resolve disputes or controversies by communicating with each other by telephone, telefax, or electronic mail. (b) Failure to resolve dispute or controversy— Following an…
This on-demand training module gives an overview of the Interstate Compact for Adult Offender Supervision intended for Jail Administrators.
Offenders will sometimes allege that officers were negligent in carrying out their duties under the Compact. For example, in Grayson v. Kansas, No. 06-2375-KHV, 2007 WL 1259990, at *1 (D. Kan. Apr. 30, 2007), a probationer transferred under the Compact…
Whether a receiving state can require relevant documents and return an offender that can no longer be safely supervised
Although receiving states may not impose pre-acceptance requirements on offenders that would violate a state’s obligations under the Compact, the Compact and its rules would not prevent the receiving state from imposing post-acceptance testing…
State sovereign immunity is, as noted above, the doctrine that prevents a state from being sued in its own courts without its consent. It will generally be a matter of state law, and of course not every state is the same. Many states have narrowed or…
I. Authority The Executive Committee is vested with the power to adopt a policy on behalf of the Interstate Commission during periods when the Interstate Commission is not in session. The Executive Committee oversees the Commission’s day-to-day activities…
(a) Alternative dispute resolution—Any controversy or dispute between or among parties that arises from or relates to this compact that is not resolved under Rule 6.101 may be resolved by alternative dispute resolution processes. These shall consist of…
Section 1. Immunity. The Commission, its Members, officers, executive director, and employees shall be immune from suit and liability, either personally or in their official capacity, for any claim for damage to or loss of property or personal injury or…
Offenders subject to deferred sentences are eligible for transfer of supervision under the same eligibility requirements, terms, and conditions applicable to all other offenders under this compact. Persons subject to supervision pursuant to a pre-trial…
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.…
Whether a transferred offender who commits a violation may be subjected to confinement for short periods in lieu of revocation
This practice guide assists Compact offices in navigating procedures for electronic signatures. Topics addressed within the guide include: Background on legality of electronic signatures; Responsibilities , procedures and best practices when utilizing…
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…
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.
A person who is released from incarceration under furlough, work-release, or other preparole program is not eligible for transfer under the compact. History: Adopted November 3, 2003, effective August 1, 2004.
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.
Displaying 121 - 150 of 266