Detention
The purpose of the ICJ is not to regulate the transfer and return of juveniles simply for the sake of regulation. Rather, regulating the movement of juveniles fulfills the critical purposes of promoting public safety and protecting the rights of crime victims. See Interstate Compact for Juveniles, art. I (2008). All activities of the Commission and its member states are directed at promoting these two overriding purposes. Member states, their courts, and their criminal justice agencies are accordingly required to take all necessary action to “effectuate the Compact’s purposes and intent,” which includes arrest and detention of out-of-state juveniles who are wanted or missing. Id. at art. VII, § A(2).
When a youth is detained pursuant to the ICJ, local authorities must advise the holding state’s ICJ office. The holding state’s ICJ office shall contact the juvenile’s home/demanding state’s ICJ Office concerning the case. ICJ Rule 6-102(2) provides the authority to hold an absconder, escapee, or accused delinquent “at a location it deems appropriate,” even in absence of a warrant. ("In the absence of an active warrant, the holding state shall have the discretion to hold the juvenile at a location it deems appropriate.") See also ICJ Ad. Op. 01-2019(Interstate Comm’n for Juveniles 2019).
ICJ Rule 7-105 (1) provides guidance regarding the secure detention while the youth is pending return:
Where circumstances require the holding/receiving court to detain any juvenile under the ICJ, the type of secure facility shall be determined by the laws regarding the age of majority in the holding/receiving state. This would include an out-of-state juvenile that is charged as an adult and is subject to extradition under the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), or the home/demanding state’s own extradition laws.
However, the laws of holding/receiving state must be applied to determine the type of secure facility to be used when an individual is detained pursuant to the ICJ. If an individual is detained pursuant to the ICJ, the age of majority of the receiving state determines the type of secure facility in which the youth shall be held. For a discussion of issues concerningage of majority in relation to transfers of supervision, see discussion supra Section 3.4.3. For discussion of concerns related to the Juvenile Justice Delinquency and Prevention Act (JJDPA), see supra Section 4.3.1.
Habeas corpus is generally unavailable to juveniles being held pending return to the sending state under an interstate compact. See supra Section 4.1.2.
Practice Note:
A youth arrested and detained for violating the terms and conditions of supervision may have certain due process rights. If the sending state intends to use the juvenile’s violations in the receiving state as the basis for possibly revoking the juvenile’s conditional release, U.S. Supreme Court decisions may require that the sending and receiving states comply with various hearing requirements. See Morrissey v. Brewer and Gagnon v. Scarpelli infra at Section 4.6.1.