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).

 

4-2019
Rule(s):
4-102 (2)(b)
Date Issued:
Date Revised:
Requester:
California
Description:

Is the use of an outdated Form VI a legitimate basis for the receiving state to treat the referral of a supervision case as an incomplete referral?

Summary:

While ICJ Rule 4-102 (2) (b) does not require that a referral be rejected solely on the basis of the fact that the Form VI was out of date, the operative nature of the above referenced ICJ Rules require the sending state to ensure that the referral is complete and forwarded to the receiving state.  That affirmative obligation coupled with clear indications that the document was tampered with after being approved by the Court and the nature of the information omitted from the form based on the fact it is outdated, taken together are sufficient to justify the refusal to accept the referral under these circumstances. 

 

2-2019
Rule(s):
6-102
Date Issued:
Date Revised:
Requester:
Maine
Description:

State’s obligation to inform juvenile that s/he may not be returned to home state and whether the Form III may be withdrawn.

Summary:

Based upon the fact that a juvenile is entitled to be informed of his/her due process rights under ICJ Rule 6-102 (5), it is consistent that a juvenile who learns that he/she will not be returned to the home state should be afforded the opportunity to withdraw their consent to voluntary return under ICJ Rule 6-102. In that case, the procedures under ICJ Rule 6-103 could be applied.

 

1-2019
Rule(s):
6-102(2)
Date Issued:
Date Revised:
Requester:
Minnesota
Description:

In the absence of a warrant, what would appropriately authorize a holding state to hold a juvenile.

Summary:

ICJ Rule 6-102(2) provides the authority to hold an absconder, escapee, or accused delinquent, even in absence of a warrant.

The mere fact that a request to hold a probation/parole absconder, escapee or accused delinquent under ICJ Rule 6-102(2) is oral rather than written would not in and of itself be a denial of due process.  Nonetheless, a written request would nonetheless appear to be advisable for the purposes of documentation and proof that such a request was made.

 

3-2018
Rule(s):
7-104
Date Issued:
Date Revised:
Requester:
ICJ Executive Committee
Description:

Whether ICJ Rule 7-104 requires a home/demanding state to return a juvenile being held on a warrant even if the warrant has been withdrawn and whether state confidentiality laws prohibit entry of warrants issued for juveniles subject to the Compact into NCIC.

Summary:

In summary, a duty to return appears to arise under ICJ Rule 7-104(3) only if mandated by other ICJ rules.

Moreover, because the ICJ is an interstate compact to which congressional consent has been given, under both the compact clause (Art. I, Section 3.) and the contract clause (Art. I, Sec. 1) of the U.S. Constitution, the provisions of the ICJ and its administrative rules supersede any conflicting state laws, including confidentiality requirements applicable to issuance of warrants for juveniles subject to the compact and the requirements of ICJ Rule 7-104 that “shall be entered into the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) with a nationwide pickup radius and not eligible for bond.”

However, there may be situations in which a return is not possible.  In such cases, documentation should be provided by home/demanding/sending state in writing as to the reason why it is not possible to affect a return. The written explanation should note specific provisions of the Compact, its authorized rules, and/or controlling circumstances, such as that no parent or legal guardian remains in the state.  Given the clear mandate of the Rule 7-104(3), the use of this procedure should be limited to only those cases where return is not possible.  Subsequent action by the Commission to clarify requirements for such cases would also be warranted. 

 

2-2018
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.

 

1-2018
Rule(s):
4-101, 4-104
Date Issued:
Date Revised:
Requester:
Vermont
Description:

Is a sending state required to transfer supervision of a juvenile adjudicated there for an offense but who resides with a parent in the receiving state in a case where the parent may be homeless?  If so, can enforcement action be taken if the sending state refuses to implement the transfer under the ICJ?

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.