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).

 

2-2012
Rule(s):
ICJ Rules
Date Issued:
Date Revised:
Requester:
Idaho
At Issue:

If a juvenile is arrested on a new offense in a state other than the juvenile's home state, could the holding state's detention center bill the juvenile's family with detention fees while the new charge is going through the court process? At what point would the hold on the new charge end, and the ICJ hold begin? Would it be the responsibility of the holding state to notify the home state of when the new charges were settled and the ICJ process had begun? Could a holding state ever bill the home state for the cost of detention fees? Some states statutorily are not allowed to pay for detention time in another state.

Finding:

In sum, while the Commission appears to have the statutory authority under Article I of the Compact to include supervision fees as part of those costs, ICJ Rule 5-101(5) clearly reflects that the Commission has not seen fit to do so.  Because the current ICJ Rules appear to preclude detention fees, other related questions concerning imposition of such fees upon a juvenile are moot.  Although ICJ Rule 5-101(5) only deals with imposition of supervision fees upon ‘a juvenile,’ statutory prohibitions against such fees caution against attempting to impose such a fee upon the home state in the absence of further research into the nature and extent of such prohibitions and the number of states in which they exist.  

Furthermore, ICJ Rule 7-101 allows a holding state to be reimbursed for detention if the home/demanding state “fails to affect the return” of the juvenile “within five (5) business days of being notified by the holding state's ICJ Office that the juvenile's due process rights have been met. This time period may be extended up to an additional five (5) business days with the approval from both ICJ Offices.” However, it is clear that this rule cannot be applied while pending charges exist in the holding state.  In fact, ICJ Rule 7-103 prohibits the return of such juveniles until pending charges are resolved, unless consent is given by the holding/receiving states’ and demanding/sending states’ courts and ICJ Offices.

1-2012
Rule(s):
ICJ Rules
Date Issued:
Date Revised:
Requester:
West Region
At Issue:

Whether the law enforcement exemptions from the provisions of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 ("HIPAA") would apply to transfers and returns of juveniles involving non-member states.

Finding:

Based upon the provisions of the HIPAA administrative rules concerning exemptions from coverage and the above referenced authorities and analysis, the law enforcement exemptions from the HIPAA would not apply to transfers and returns of juveniles involving American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands or the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.

4-2011
Rule(s):
5-103
Date Issued:
Date Revised:
Requester:
West Region
At Issue:

Can a non-adjudicated juvenile offender, such as a youth subject to a deferred adjudication, whose out-of-state placement under the Interstate Compact for Juveniles (ICJ) has failed, be placed in a secure detention center while awaiting return to the sending state?

Finding:

Under the authority of ICJ Rule 6-104 … the Compact and its rules authorize both apprehension and detention of a juvenile, subject to the other relevant provisions of the ICJ rules regarding juvenile detention.

3-2011
Rule(s):
ICJ Rules
Date Issued:
Date Revised:
Requester:
Colorado
At Issue:

Is a "non-adjudicated" juvenile sex offender sentenced under a plea and abeyance order and assigned to report to the Attorney General's office without any special conditions or a probation officer, and who wishes to transfer to another state, subject to the jurisdiction of the ICJ?

Finding:

Under the Compact a “non-adjudicated” juvenile sex offender sentenced under a “plea and abeyance” order, but assigned to report to the Attorney General’s Office without any special conditions or a probation officer being assigned, and who seeks to transfer to another state is subject to the provisions of the ICJ, if the order not only requires compliance with all laws but whose sentence also includes provisions which, for example, require completion of other terms and conditions such as a sex offender treatment or counseling modification program.  Such a juvenile is not in actuality an “unsupervised juvenile” even though there are no special conditions or the assignment of a probation officer.

As such, the relocation of a juvenile under such a sentence is subject to the jurisdiction of the ICJ and applications for transfer of supervision should continue to be submitted and investigated as required under the Compact.  Moreover, during the term of the sentencing order imposed by the sending state such a juvenile is subject to the rules of the Compact governing supervision of juveniles generally as provided in Chapters 4 and 5 of the ICJ Rules.

1-2011
Rule(s):
HIPAA Exemptions for the ICJ
Date Issued:
Requester:
North Dakota
At Issue:

Whether or not the activities, including the disclosure and tracking of protected health information, of state agencies which administer the ICJ, acting pursuant to the provisions of the ICJ and its authorized rules, are exempt from the applicability of HIPAA.

Finding:

Protected health information may be disclosed for law enforcement purposes when such disclosures are required by law. The disclosure and tracking of protected health information, among authorized Compact Administrators' offices, concerning any juvenile subject to Compact supervision pursuant to court order, as required by the Compact and its authorized rules would be exempt from HIPAA.

5-2010
Rule(s):
1-101
Date Issued:
Date Revised:
Requester:
State of Colorado
At Issue:

Whether the Interstate Compact for Juveniles, and its duly authorized rules, apply to juveniles who are undocumented immigrants.

Finding:

An undocumented immigrant who meets the definition of “Juvenile” under Article II (H) of the Compact and ICJ Rule 1-101, and seeks to transfer under the Compact and ICJ Rules, is subject to the jurisdiction of the Compact.  While such person’s status as an “undocumented” immigrant would not necessarily disqualify an immigrant from transferring under the Compact, the applicable rules may result in the denial of a transfer due to the inability of the immigrant to meet the criteria of the Compact in a given case.