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).

 

1-2015
Rule(s):
2-102(1), 2-106
Date Issued:
Date Revised:
Requester:
Executive Committee
At Issue:

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

Finding:

In sum, the express language of the foregoing Compact Statute provisions in Article I (J) and Article III (K), as well as Rule 2-102 (1), does not appear to authorize the collection or sharing of information concerning the interstate movement of juveniles who are not ‘subject to’ or ‘supervised under’ this Compact. However, pursuant to Rule 2-106, 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.

4-2014
Rule(s):
4-104(4), ICJ Article I
Date Issued:
Date Revised:
Requester:
West Region subgroup
At Issue:

Approving ‘placement’ or ‘supervision’ and ICJ authority in cases where placement may violate court orders.

Finding:

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(4) 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.

3-2014
Rule(s):
ICJ Article I
Date Issued:
Date Revised:
Requester:
North Dakota
At Issue:

Provisions for cooperative detention within ICJ

Finding:

In the absence of a transfer of supervision as defined by the terms of the Interstate Compact for Juveniles, such juveniles are not subject to these rules pursuant to Article I of the ICJ and ICJ Rules 4-101(1) and 4-101(5). Alternatively, because such an arrangement constitutes a contract “for the cooperative institutionalization in public facilities in member states for delinquent youth needing special services . . .” as contemplated in ICJ Article I, (D), it is not prohibited by the Compact, even if such juveniles are conditionally released into the community for education or employment.

1-2014
Rule(s):
8-101(3)
Date Issued:
Requester:
Rhode Island
At Issue:

The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) as it relates to youth and family information.

Finding:

HIPAA privacy rules allow disclosures of protected health information when consistent with applicable law and ethical standards, including disclosures to a law enforcement official reasonably able to prevent or lessen a serious and imminent threat to the health or safety of an individual or the public, or to identify or apprehend an individual who appears to have escaped from lawful custody. Under these provisions, it appears that disclosures of health information required to provide for treatment of juveniles subject to the ICJ, including non-delinquent runaways, would also be exempt from HIPAA requirements.

3-2012
Rule(s):
5-101
Date Issued:
Date Revised:
Requester:
Ohio
At Issue:

For purposes of detention and return of a person serving a juvenile probation or parole sentence who absconds or flees to avoid prosecution (youth with a warrant from another state) and who has the status of an adult in the home/demanding state (in this case Michigan), but is still classified as a juvenile in the holding state (in this case Ohio), must the holding state treat that person as an adult or does the law of the holding state regarding the age of majority apply? 

Finding:

Based upon the provisions of the ICJ and ICJ Rule 5-101(7), if the youth in question is serving a juvenile probation or parole sentence and absconds or flees to avoid prosecution (youth with a warrant from another state), ICJ Rule 5-101(7) creates an exception whereby the receiving state law regarding the age of majority applies to incarceration of juveniles, where “a receiving state court is required to detain any juvenile under the ICJ”.  Under this rule, even though such an individual is already classified as an adult in the State of Michigan, based on this rule, if detained and returned pursuant to the ICJ, such youth must be treated as a “juvenile.”

5-2012
Rule(s):
4-101
Date Issued:
Date Revised:
Requester:
Hawaii
At Issue:

Whether minors adjudicated juvenile delinquents in Hawaii and referred to residential treatment programs in Utah and California, but who do not qualify for transfer under the ICPC, may be transferred under the ICJ?

Finding:

ICJ Rule 8-101, regarding Travel Permits, provides additional guidance by adding that “states may elect to use the Form VII Out-of-State Travel Permit and Agreement to Return for notification purposes” (emphasis provided).  Thus, even though juveniles traveling to a residential facility for placement are not eligible for transfer under ICJ, the ICJ still provides a vehicle for promoting public safety. To promote public safety, Hawaii “may elect to use the Form VII Out-of-State Travel Permit and Agreement to Return for notification purposes,” pursuant to ICJ Rule 8-101(2).  However, as set forth in ICJ Rule 4-101(5) “A juvenile who is not eligible for transfer under this Compact is not subject to these rules.”  Therefore, supervision cannot be provided via ICJ.