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).

 

Rule(s):
ICJ Rule 2-102(1)
Date Issued:
Requester:
Executive Committee
At Issue:

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

Finding:

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, these provisions do not preclude verification of whether a juvenile is subject to the ICJ.

Rule(s):
ICJ Rule 4-104(4), ICJ Article I
Date Issued:
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.

Rule(s):
ICJ Article I
Date Issued:
Requester:
North Dakota
At Issue:

Provisions for cooperative detention within ICJ

Finding:

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.

Rule(s):
ICJ Rule 5-101(3)
Date Issued:
Requester:
Minnesota
At Issue:

Whether or not the term 'sanctions' used in Rule 5-101(3) includes detention time.

Finding:

Accordingly, based upon the above points and authorities, the term ‘sanctions’ as used in ICJ Rule 5-101 (3) is sufficiently broad to include detention without the need to explicitly list, in the rule, every possible sanction which might be imposed.

Rule(s):
ICJ Rule 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.