On September 29, 2021, the Commission approved several Rule Amendments and ICOTS enhancements to be implemented on April 1, 2022. ICOTS Enhancements supplementing these rules launch June 1, 2022. Details can be accessed on the ABM archive page.
Commissioners, Deputy Compact Administrators and Compact Staff are invited to join a training session to recap the justifications and impacts of each of the amendments and enhancements to prepare states for training stakeholders in their state. The 2nd sessions scheduled for May 2022 cover the new ICOTS processes on the new warrant tracking feature and discretionary retaking activity. This session will also provide Commission updates as listed below:
2022 Approved ICOTS Enhancements
- New Warrant Status
- Offender Profile
- Email Notifications
- New Discretionary Retaking Activity
Offender Management Enhancement
- New restrictions to improve process management
New Dashboard (Tolled ICOTS Cases) & New CAR Data
Have a question you would like addressed regarding the amendments or enhancements? Submissions can be made to email@example.com
Session #1 Nov 30th & Dec 2nd (registration closed)
Session #2 May 18th @ 11 am ET, May 18th @ 2 pm ET & May 19th @ 2 pm ET (registration closed)
Q & A:
2022 Rule Amendment Questions
Q: My state has compliance concerns of meeting a 15-business day timeframe. Is assistance available?
A: As every state functions differently, states face different challenges issuing compact compliant warrants. The new 'Warrant Status' ICOTS Enhancement will assist through data reporting to identify areas of compliance concern nationally, state-to-state and locally within each state. States with compliance concerns are encouraged to proactively reach out for assistance sooner than later. Note too, the approve rules actually EXPAND timeframes in most instances a warrant is required. The Commission’s Technical Training Assistance Policy is available to all member states and provides solutions based on your state’s specific technical or training needs.
Q: My state has no control over court's timeline to issue warrants or DA offices to process them. How are we expected to be in compliance?
A: Any and all compliance concerns with ICAOS Rules should be elevated to your state's appointed Commissioner. Commissioners are vested with the authority to “take all actions necessary and appropriate to effectuate the Compact’s purposes and intent.” See, Compact Statute, Article IX, Section A. Timeframes for issuing compact compliant warrants are not a new requirement and as noted above have mostly been expanded in these approved rule amendments. As with any compliance concern, states should engage its stakeholders, utilize its State Council resources as well as reach out to the national office for Commission support to ensure Compact duties are fulfilled.
Q: Fifteen business days (3 weeks) is too long and our in-state policies require warrants to be issued within 5 business days. Why 15 business days?
A: Through various committee/region discussions over the years and based of the 2019 Warrant Audit responses, 15 business days is a balance between public safety and a state’s ability to issue warrants. While recognizing some states may face challenges, it is important to establish a standard that can be measured. States can certainly establish their own policies and procedures for shorter timeframes internally to ensure activities are completed within the ICAOS rules.
Q: For warrants required for violation reports requiring retaking (including absconders,) is the warrant due to be issued within 15 business days of receipt of the violation report or violation report response? What about cases in which the sending state would like probable cause established for behavior requiring retaking?
A: As stated in each rule, warrants are to be issued within 15 business days of receipt of the violation report. The only exception to this is if behavior requiring retaking is reported and the sending state requests probable cause in its initial response. In those instances, the warrant would be required to be issued after probable cause is established for the revocable behavior and the decision to retake is made by the sending state.
Q: Why is the response to violation report still due in 10 business days when the warrant issuance timeframe is 15 business days?
A: Responses to violations requiring retaking should occur timely. The Commission did not consider expanding the response time for violation reports in any rule proposals.
ICOTS Enhancement Questions
Q: Will warrant status information be expected to be entered for absconders since the cases are closed in ICOTS? And when the warrant is served and the offender is apprehended within the receiving state (moving the warrant status to historical,) should these cases be re-opened in ICOTS?
A: The new warrant status is entered on the offender profile, not specific compact cases. So like other special statuses in ICOTS (e.g. sex offender, history of violence, victim sensitive) the status can be managed/entered anytime regardless whether there is an active case on the profile.
As stated in AO 1-2019, once an offender is apprehended within the jurisdiction of the receiving state after being reported an absconder, Rule 5.103-1 applies and the case should be re-opened and remain open (see Rule 4.112 (b)) until either retaking occurs (documenting PC and retaking logistics) and of course if supervision is to be resumed (retaking will not occur.) In either circumstance, the receiving state would remain responsible for supervision while the offender is in the receiving state.
Q: When the new Warrant Status enhancement is implemented, are states expected to enter historical warrant data? If so, how far back are they expected to enter warrant records from?
A: States currently tracking warrant data on active cases are encouraged to enter warrant data into ICOTS on records where warrants were issued prior to the enhancement if they have the data to complete such records and have confirmed the warrant is still active. Otherwise, warrant data will be expected to be entered in ICOTS in cases where warrants are required based on activities occurring on or after June 1st, 2022.
Q: Why are the ICOTS emails triggered by the violation response for the new Warrant Status? As noted in the above question, the timeframe to issue a warrant within 15 business days starts upon receipt of the violation report.
A: The email notifications are independent functionality and frequency of the emails is not directly based on due dates for compact compliant warrants. The reason the Violation Response is used to trigger the emails is to ensure emails are not triggered for offenders ordered to return in lieu of retaking. That decision has not been made until transmission of the OVR reply.
Warrant timeframe compliance will be tracked by future reports (not directly in ICOTS) keying the violation report receipt date (transmission to the sending state) and the new warrant entry date where issuing authority and NCIC verification are not NULL. See technical details on the ABM archive page
Q: When the notice of failure to arrive triggers the warrant status notification email, will submitting the notice of arrival cancel it?
A: Yes, as noted in the technical specifications, stop triggers include:
- Successful NOA transmitted after NOFA
- Warrant Status is updated to indicate warrant execution
- Warrant Status is updated to indicate warrant withdrawal
Q: Will there be a section to note if the warrant if fully extraditable?
A: Yes, there are comment and attachment fields for users to document anything not already captured in a specific text field. By providing the NCIC verification information, the user is also confirming the warrant is compact compliant, which includes having no geographic limit and no bond.
Q: On parole cases, with new felony convictions that involve incarceration in the receiving state, we get a revocation order from the Board of Parole that is placed as a detainer with the holding authority; there is no warrant entered into NCIC; how are we entering those?
A: The new warrant tracking feature was not specifically designed to track detainers and the ability to track detainers with this process was never raised during discussions or the Commission comment period while technical specifications were scoped and developed. As states encounter these situations, the national office recommends states discuss options and feasibility to use this feature to also track detainers. Otherwise, when detainers are issued, states may continue to track those externally recognizing emails will still be triggered per the warrant requirement in the rules. As stated in the technical specifications email notifications do cease on the 30th day after the triggered compact activity requiring a warrant.
Q: What sending state users can add warrant status information?
A: The assigned PO, Supervisor and the Compact Office can add/update warrant status information via the Offender Profile screen.
Q: Is there a specific field for the NIC number?
A: The NIC should be entered as the 'Warrant Identifier' field. Note labeling this same field 'NIC Number' was considered, but it was decided it should be generic, resulting in 'warrant identifier' instead.
Q: How will the warrant data be used to measure the 15 day warrant issuance requirement?
A: Compliance with the 15 business day warrant timeframe will be determined by the NCIC verification date and the transmission dates of various compact activities. For example, an absconder is reported to a sending state on June 1st 2022. To meet compliance with the 15 day timeframe, the dates entered for both warrant issuance AND NCIC verification need to be on or before June 22nd, 2022.
Q: Should the warrant "Date Served" be the date when the case is closed and the individual is physically out of the RS?
A: No, the 'Date Served' is the date the actual arrest occurred and the warrant was served. This will move the warrant record to historical status. The case closure notice is the activity to indicate supervision has ceased in the receiving state when the individual has physically left the receiving state.
Q: Which users will get the email notifications for the new 'warrant status'? Are the notifications the same?
A: PO, supervisor and compact office users in the sending state will all receive the same warrant status notifications.
Q: If a warrant status is marked in ICOTS, for an absconder for instance, and that person is subsequently arrested in the sending state. Will ICOTS still show warrant status if they are pending a new transfer?
A: The sending state is solely responsible for managing the warrant status in ICOTS. If it was previously entered due to absconding it will remain active until the sending state removes the warrant status by indicating the warrant was served or withdrawn. The new warrant feature is not related to any specific compact case and does not show as an indicator on any compact activities.
Q: State courts issue warrants for a variety of reasons, and there is frequently no intent to invoke a Compact rule. Do ALL warrants need to be entered into ICOTS using the new 'warrant status' feature?
A: ICOTS is used only for compact cases and compact warrants. Only those warrants issued in accordance with an ICAOS rule need to be entered into ICOTS using this new feature. According to ICAOS rules, a 'warrant' must be issued nationwide, without bond, and entered into NCIC.
Q: Will any data fields in the new 'warrant status' prepopulate from a preceding 'Response to OVR/Response Addendums' or vice versa?
A: The new 'warrant status' does not share any data field with any compact activities or cases. Certain activities in which a compact warrant is required trigger email notifications prompting users to enter warrant data on the profile.
Q: How will ICOTS calculate a due date for a warrant after a report of Behavior Requiring Retaking when the initial OVR Reply is 'Conduct PC hearing'? What about New Felony/Violent Misd conviction where the OVR Reply is that the state is invoking Rule 5.101-2 (Discretionary process for disposition of violation in the sending state for a new crime conviction) and the warrant may not be needed?
A: Compliance with warrant timeframes will be managed externally in the ICAOS Dashboards as other compliance measures. Various data elements/dates used to manage the retaking process will be utilized in the future reports, including the type of violation requiring retaking as well as dates the receiving state established PC, dates for availability and location (whether the offender is in custody.) However, ICOTS does not specifically have a process or any data fields managing use of Rule 5.101-2. The specifics of how these reports will manage compliance in these situations is TBD.
Note: In the initial scenario above, emails will not be triggered prompting entry of 'warrant status' until after transmission of the subsequent Addendum indicating PC was established with a response of 'warrant requested/issued.' This is indicated in the functional specifications.
Q: Should the NCIC verification date be entered if the warrant is not compact compliant? For example, the warrant might get entered into NCIC but with an extradition limit..
A: The NCIC verification date should be entered after confirming the warrant is compact compliant. This includes confirming the warrant is nationwide, without bond.
Q: Can the receiving state enter the info if it is verified or just the sending state?
A: No, only users who are or were associated with the profile as a sending state can enter 'warrant status' records.
FY23 Audit Questions
Q: Will it be mandatory for send states to have FBI#"s on offender profile for auditing purposes?
A: Although the audit will note the number/percentage of profiles without FBI#'s, that field is not mandatory.
Q: When a new front photo is uploaded, it does not automatically replace the primary photo shown in ICOTS. Instead it still shows the original front photo. How do we remove the outdated picture?
A: To replace the front photo, add first from the offender profile, manage offender demographics screen. Then an ICOTS state administrator will need to remove the outdated front picture through the 'edit offender demographics' feature.
Q: Is the creation of junk records a training issue?