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 151
Bench Book - 3.2.1.6.2 Deferred Prosecution
Some states may use a “sentencing” option referred to as deferred prosecution. Such sentences, which are generally authorized by a state’s statutes, allow the offender to admit under oath or stipulate to the facts of the criminal conduct, but defer…
Bench Book - 1.4.3 Implications of Congressional Consent
Congressional consent can significantly change the nature of an interstate Compact. “[W]here Congress has authorized the States to enter into a cooperative agreement, and where the subject matter of that agreement is an appropriate subject for…
Bench Book - 3.6.1 General Conditions
Although a state may be required to accept supervision given the offender’s eligibility status, the receiving state may determine that conditions are necessary at the time of acceptance. The receiving state can only impose conditions that it would impose…
Bench Book - 1.7.1 Relief Must Be Consistent with the Compact
In Texas v. New Mexico, the Supreme Court sustained exceptions to a Special Master’s recommendation to enlarge the Pecos River Compact Commission, holding that one consequence of a Compact becoming “a law of the United States” is that “no court may order…
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 - 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 - 3.4.2 Type of Supervision in Receiving State
While the sending state has sole authority to determine the duration of supervision either by way of the court’s sentence of by paroling authorities, the receiving state retains discretion as to the type of supervision it will provide. Rule 4.101…
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…
Corrective Action Plans 02-2015
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 day-to-day activities managed by…
Advisory Opinion 1-2019
How states should manage absconders apprehended in the receiving state
Rule 3.102 - Submission of transfer request to a receiving state
(a) Except as provided in sections (c) & (d), and subject to the exceptions in Rule 3.103 and 3.106, a sending state seeking to transfer supervision of an offender to another state shall submit a completed transfer request with all required…
Guidelines for Resolving Compliance Issues 03-2008
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 day-to-day activities managed by…
Chapter 1: Definitions - Rule 1.101
As used in these rules, unless the context clearly requires a different construction- Abscond – means to be absent from the offender’s approved place of residence and employment; and failing to comply with reporting requirements. Adult – means both…
Chapter 4 - Returning Offenders to the Sending State
Bench Book - 4.2 Waiver of Formal Extradition Proceedings
Waiver of Formal Extradition Proceedings
ICOTS Privacy Policy V4 06-2009
Privacy Policy Interstate Compact Offender Tracking System Version 4.0   Approved 04/23/2009 Revised on 4/05/2022   1.0 Statement of Purpose The goal of establishing and maintaining the ICOTS is to further the following purposes of the Commission:…
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…
Advisory Opinion 9-2004
Individuals and sex offenders subject to lifetime supervision (CSL)
Advisory Opinion 9-2006
Whether the offender being in the receiving state prior to investigation is a valid reason for rejection
Advisory Opinion 4-2010
The effect of a Washington statute that prohibits certain offenders from being under supervision
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 1-2010
Whether a receiving state can require relevant documents and return an offender that can no longer be safely supervised
Advisory Opinion 2-2007
Whether offenders who seek to reside in federal housing are eligible for transfer under the Compact
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.…
Advisory Opinion 6-2005
Whether offenders subject to Washington’s “deferred prosecution” statute are eligible for transfer under the Compact
Advisory Opinion 14-2006
Imposing fees on offenders transferring through the Compact
Advisory Opinion 1-2008
Clarification regarding sex offenders living in the receiving state at the time of sentencing and imposing/enforcing special conditions
Advisory Opinion HIPAA-2005
Guidance from the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, Office of Civil Rights as to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”) Coverage & Exemptions for the Interstate Compact for Adult Offender Supervision
Advisory Opinion 5-2006
Whether a receiving state can exceed the 45 day rule to determine if a supervision plan is valid for sex offenders
Advisory Opinion 3-2015
Whether offenders sentenced to home detention programs are eligible for transfer under the Compact
Displaying 91 - 120 of 151