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).

 

3-2012
Adv Op_03-2012_WEST Region Revised 030122.pdf
Rule(s):
5-101
Date Issued:
Date Revised:
Requester:
Ohio
Description:

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? 

Summary:

Based upon the provisions of the ICJ Compact 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 detention 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.”

 

View Full Advisory Opinion
5-2012
Adv Op_05-2012_Hawaii Revised 031418.pdf
Rule(s):
4-101
Date Issued:
Date Revised:
Requester:
Hawaii
Description:

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?

Summary:

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.

 

View Full Advisory Opinion
2-2012
Adv Op_02-2012_Idaho Revised 030120.pdf
Rule(s):
ICJ Rules
Date Issued:
Date Revised:
Requester:
Idaho
Description:

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.

Summary:

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(1) 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(1) 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.

 

View Full Advisory Opinion
1-2012
Adv Op_01-2012_WEST Region REVISED 031418.pdf
Rule(s):
ICJ Rules
Date Issued:
Date Revised:
Requester:
West Region
Description:

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.

Summary:

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.

 

View Full Advisory Opinion
1-2011
Adv Op_01-2011_ND.pdf
Rule(s):
HIPAA Exemptions for the ICJ
Date Issued:
Date Revised:
Requester:
North Dakota
Description:

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.

Summary:

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.

 

View Full Advisory Opinion
5-2010
Adv Op_5-2010_CO Revised 031418.pdf
Rule(s):
1-101
Date Issued:
Date Revised:
Requester:
State of Colorado
Description:

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

Summary:

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. 

 

View Full Advisory Opinion