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).

 

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. 

4-2010
Rule(s):
ICJ Rules
Date Issued:
Requester:
State of Montana
At Issue:

Applicability and enforceability of the rules of the Interstate Compact for Juveniles with sovereign tribal nations and reservation lands. Whether the Interstate Compact for Juveniles and its duly authorized rules apply to juveniles residing in sovereign tribal nations and reservation lands.

Finding:

Based upon the referenced provisions of the U.S. Constitution and decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court, in the absence of the Consent of Congress for tribes to enter into agreement with the states as members of the Interstate Compact for Juveniles, no such authority exists under which the provisions of the compact or its rules can regulate transfers of juveniles to and from sovereign tribal nations or reservation lands.

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

Receiving State's Ability to Sanction Juveniles Under ICJ Rule 5-101(1)

Finding:

Using these well accepted rules of statutory interpretation, it is clear that because the ICJ rules do not include a special definition of the terms “same standards . . . that prevail for its own juveniles. . .” the ordinary meaning of those terms leads to the inevitable conclusion that as the supervising State, Pennsylvania is thus permitted, under Rule 5-101(1), to impose ‘graduated sanctions’ upon any juvenile transferred under the compact if such standards are also applied to its own delinquent juveniles.