All Advisory Opinions At-A-Glance

Any state may submit an informal written request to the Executive Director for assistance in interpreting the rules of this compact. The Executive Director may seek the assistance of legal counsel, the Executive Committee, or both, in interpreting the rules. The Executive Committee may authorize its standing committees to assist in interpreting the rules. Interpretations of the rules shall be issued in writing by the Executive Director or the Executive Committee and shall be circulated to all of the states.



Disclaimer: Advisory Opinions are written in accordance with how a Rule is currently drafted. They are not intended for speculation or to encompass all scenarios, but are a legal interpretation of a Rule(s).

 

2-2018
Adv_Op_02-2018_OH.pdf
Rule(s):
7-103
Date Issued:
Date Revised:
Requester:
Ohio
Description:

Return of Juvenile Serving a Sentence for New Offense in a Receiving State

Summary:

Based upon the above provisions of the ICJ rules and legal analysis, where there are pending charges, which exist in the receiving/holding state, ICJ Rule 7-103 prohibits the return of the juvenile until “after charges are resolved,” or “consent is given” by the courts.  Moreover, ICJ member states have a duty to coordinate the operation of the ICJ in supervision cases where both compacts may be implicated and where requirements are imposed by similar rules of both ICJ and ICAOS, the return or retaking of an offender under either compact cannot be accomplished without the agreement of Florida officials or until the charges are resolved.

 

View Full Advisory Opinion
1-2018
Adv_Op_01-2018_VT Revised 040124.pdf
Rule(s):
4-101, 4-104
Date Issued:
Date Revised:
Requester:
Vermont
Description:

Transfer of Supervision where the Parent May be Homeless

Summary:

Vermont (sending state) is required to transfer supervision to New Hampshire (receiving state) when the juvenile was adjudicated for an offense committed in Vermont and also attends school in Vermont but resides with a parent in New Hampshire.  When there is no parent or legal guardian residing in the sending state, the sending state cannot refuse to transfer supervision based on information that the parent is homeless or at risk of homelessness.  In the event of non-compliance, enforcement action is statutorily authorized if a court of the sending state refuses to implement provisions of the ICJ.

 

View Full Advisory Opinion
2-2017
Adv_Op_02-2017_AZ_IA_Revised 040124.pdf
Rule(s):
4-101
Date Issued:
Date Revised:
Requester:
Arizona
Description:

Out-of-State Juvenile Sentenced to Incarceration

Summary:

The ICJ does not prohibit a juvenile who has been adjudicated delinquent and sentenced to a period of confinement in Iowa from being placed in out-of-state correctional facilities in Arizona to serve a court ordered term of incarceration.  However, the ICJ does not apply to such juveniles because their status as 'incarcerated' means they are not subject to the ICJ.

 

View Full Advisory Opinion
1-2016
Adv_Op_01-2016_Rules Cmte_PreAdj Req Revised 040124.pdf
Rule(s):
4-101, 4-102
Date Issued:
Date Revised:
Requester:
Rules Committee
Description:

Pre-adjudicated Home Evaluation Requests

 

Summary:

Based upon the above provisions of the ICJ Rules and legal analysis, while a sending state is not explicitly prohibited from requesting a home evaluation for a juvenile pending adjudication on charges in the sending state, under the above referenced ICJ Rules, a receiving state is not required to conduct such a home evaluation or report.

 

View Full Advisory Opinion
2-2015
Adv_Op_02-2015_MN VI Revised 040124.pdf
Rule(s):
4-102
Date Issued:
Date Revised:
Requester:
Minnesota
Description:

Signatures on the Form VI: whether a request for transfer of supervision of an eligible juvenile under the compact can permissibly be processed without the signature of the ‘sentencing’ judge or compact official.

Summary:

Though Minnesota asks several questions, the ultimate issue whether a request for transfer of supervision of an eligible juvenile under the compact can permissibly be processed without the signature of the ‘sentencing’ judge or compact official.  ICJ Rule 4-102(2)(a)(i) and (2)(b) leave no question that in both parole and probation cases, the ICJ Office in the sending state shall ensure that referral documents, including the Form VI, are “complete and forwarded to the receiving state.” (emphasis supplied).  However, ICJ Rule 4-102(3) states “. . . The receiving state shall not delay the investigation pending receipt of the additional documentation.  If the juvenile is already residing in the receiving state, the receiving state shall obtain the juvenile’s signature on the Form VI Application for Services and Waiver.” Based on the literal language of ICJ Rule 4-102, the sending state is required to obtain the signature of the judge or Compact official in order to comply with this rule, subject to the limited exception noted in ICJ Rule 4-102(3).

 

View Full Advisory Opinion
4-2014
Adv_Op_04-2014_West SubGroup Revised 040124.pdf
Rule(s):
4-104(4), ICJ Article I
Date Issued:
Date Revised:
Requester:
West Region subgroup
Description:

ICJ Authority in Cases where Approval of Supervision May Result in Violation of Court Orders

Summary:

In summary, based upon the terms of the Compact, the above referenced Compact provisions, ICJ Rules and the legal authorities cited herein, that ICJ Rule 4-104(5) does not authorize a receiving state to violate ‘no contact’ orders or other court ordered conditions of the adjudicating judge or parole authority in the sending state.

 

View Full Advisory Opinion