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):
4-106*
Date Issued:
Requester:
Ohio
At Issue:

*Rule 4-104(6) was relocated to 5-101(7) as of April 1, 2014 

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 4-104-6, 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), Rule 4-106-6 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 may be treated as a "juvenile."

Rule(s):
ICJ Rule 4-101
Date Issued:
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:

The above referenced section of 4-101(2)(f)(1) explicitly excludes from eligibility for transfer under the ICJ, a juvenile who will reside in 'residential facilities.'  This rule amendment was made by the Interstate Commission in the wake of Advisory Opinion 2-2011 which pointed out that under neither the provisions of the Compact nor the previous language of this rule, was there an exception to the application of the ICJ "based upon whether the delinquent juvenile whose supervision is transferred is placed in a public or private treatment facility."  However, at the following Annual Meeting of the Commission, this specific subsection was amended as stated above with the intent to clarify that delinquent juveniles placed in residential treatment facilities are excluded.  Thus, the minor referred to in Case #1 is now not eligible for transfer through ICJ because of the referral to the residential treatment program in Utah.

Rule(s):
ICJ Rule 5-102*
Date Issued:
Requester:
Wisconsin
At Issue:

*Rule 5-102 was relocated to 8-101 as of April 1, 2014

Is a travel permit required to be issued, pursuant to ICJ Rule 5-102 for transfer of a juvenile sex offender from Wisconsin to Minnesota who is the subject of a delinquency petition, but who has not been adjudicated?

Once the juvenile is adjudicated delinquent, can the juvenile be allowed to return to Minnesota with his family while Wisconsin makes its request for transfer of supervision of the youth to Minnesota?
 

Finding:

Accordingly, as to the first question, Rule 5-102(2) does not permit a juvenile who is an "accused juvenile delinquent" to travel from one state to the other for visits exceeding forty-eight hours without a travel permit.

Secondly, based upon the definition of 'juvenile' as provided in both the ICJ and ICJ Rule 1-101, as well as the requirements of Rule 4-103 (1), once the juvenile in question has been adjudicated delinquent as a sex offender, in the absence of either an approval of a transfer request or reporting instructions, allowing such juvenile to return to Minnesota violates both the Compact and the foregoing ICJ Rules.

 

Rule(s):
ICJ Rules
Date Issued:
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 4-104 (4)* 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 4-104 (4) 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.

*Rule 4-104(4) was relocated to 5-101(5) as of April 1, 2014

Rule(s):
ICJ Rules
Date Issued:
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 provisions of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 ("HIPAA") would not apply to transfers and returns of juveniles involving the State of Georgia or the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico except in the case of Georgia in which the transfers or returns are by and between that state and one of the nine (9) other states referenced above which have not repealed the 1955 compact.