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).

 

04-2021
Rule(s):
6-103(3)
Date Issued:
Requester:
Tennessee
At Issue:

 Can a holding state judge refuse to take action on a requisition if there is no active missing person record for the juvenile in NCIC? 

Finding:

When a home state judge has entered a requisition for the non-voluntary return of a youth, the holding state judge cannot refuse to take action on the requisition under the ICJ based on the fact that there is no active missing persons record for the youth in NCIC.  

03-2021
Rule(s):
2-104, 5-101
Date Issued:
At Issue:

Does the prohibition against communication between ICJ member states as provided in ICJ Rule 2-104 forbid all communication between a supervised juvenile and prior case workers in the sending state once supervision is accepted?

Finding:

Based upon a consideration of the context of the above ICJ rules, the purpose of ICJ Rule 2-104 is not to prevent communication between sending and receiving states after the transfer of supervision occurs, but only to require that such communications be managed in an orderly manner with the knowledge and consent of both states involved in the supervision process.

02-2021
Rule(s):
2-102(1), 2-106
Date Issued:
Requester:
Executive Committee
At Issue:

Limits of ICJ authority to conduct records checks for another state on juveniles not subject to ICJ.

Finding:

In sum, neither the Compact Statute nor the ICJ Rules discussed above authorize the collection or sharing of information concerning the interstate movement of juveniles who are not ‘subject to’ or ‘supervised under’ this Compact. While state ICJ Offices may share information regarding a juvenile who crosses state lines to determine if they are or may be subject to the ICJ, no information can be lawfully released in response to requests for “records checks on juveniles not currently involved in the ICJ process."

01-2021
Rule(s):
2-102(1), 3-101
Date Issued:
Requester:
Executive Committee
At Issue:

HIPAA permits sharing information as required by the ICJ, including through the UNITY System.

Finding:

Since the ICJ Commission developed the UNITY system, in compliance with the mandates of the ICJ statute and duly authorized rules, as well as the FBI’s Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) Security Policy, the use of UNITY is permitted pursuant to the HIPAA exemptions with respect to both Personal Identifiable Information (PII) as well as Personal Health Information (PHI).

1-2020
Rule(s):
4-102, 5-101
Date Issued:
Date Revised:
Requester:
Virgin Islands
At Issue:

Can receiving state require sending state to provide revised Forms VI and IV when a juvenile makes an intrastate move after transfer of supervision is approved?    

Finding:

The ICJ rules, when interpreted in harmony with each other, do not require the sending state to submit a revised Form VI and/or Form IV to the receiving state when a juvenile makes an intrastate move after a transfer of supervision has been approved.  The receiving state is authorized to approve a change in residence and should send an additional report to provide information regarding the change to the sending state.  The sending state retains jurisdiction and may exercise its discretion to determine the appropriate response.

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

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?

Finding:

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.