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 on similar in-state offenders. See Rule 4.103(a). A receiving state cannot impose conditions on out-of-state offenders as a means of avoiding its general obligations under the Compact, nor may a receiving state preemptively impose conditions prior to acceptance as a means of preventing a transfer. To do so, either in a particular case or as a matter of routine practice, violates the Commission’s rules. For example, the receiving state would not violate the ICAOS rules by requiring an out-of-state offender to submit to registration and testing requirements (e.g., DNA testing, sex offender registration, etc.) if mandated by the laws of the receiving state and imposed on in-state offenders. See Rule 4.104(a). However, the timing of imposing conditions is critical to their validity. Under Rule 4.103, imposition of a condition by the receiving state may only occur after acceptance.

Rule 4.103 requires the receiving state to notify the sending state of its intent to impose a condition. A receiving state can place conditions on an offender resulting from any allowable investigation once transfer is accepted. In seeking to transfer, an offender accepts any conditions imposed by the receiving state; that is, by applying for transfer and with acceptance by a receiving state, the offender accepts the condition or risks forfeiting the ability to transfer supervision. A receiving state can impose a condition after acceptance of the offender, but prior to the offender’s actual physical relocation to the receiving state. See Warner v. McVey, (2010 WL 3239385 (W.D. Pa., July 9, 2010). An offender accepted for transfer may refuse to comply with a receiving state’s conditions, but refusal deprives the offender of physical relocation of supervision.

A sending state may also impose a condition on an offender as a condition of transferring supervision; however, in this context, the receiving state must receive an opportunity to inform the sending state of its inability to meet a condition. This may be of particular concern to judges. A court may impose a condition and require that it be met in the receiving state; yet, the receiving state can refuse to enforce the condition if it is unable to do so. See ICAOS Advisory Opinion 1-2008. The receiving state’s inability to enforce a condition requires the sending state either to withdraw the condition and allow the offender to relocate to the receiving state, or withdraw the transfer request and continue to supervise the offender in the sending state.