AGO 1991-005.

• Case Date: February 11, 1991
• Court: Connecticut

Connecticut Attorney General Opinions 1991. AGO 1991-005. February 11, 1991Opinion No. 1991-005Mr. Robert BoscoDirectorOffice of Adult ProbationAdministrative Office643 Maple AvenueHartford, CT 06114 Dear Mr. Bosco: We are in receipt of a letter dated June 6, 1990 from your department, wherein you request our opinion on an issue concerning Conn. Gen. Stat. §54-132 et. seq., the Interstate Compact for Parole and Probation Supervision. Specifically you question "whether or not it is necessary to obtain a warrant from a Connecticut court, in addition to that of the sending state, in order to take custody of and confine an out-of-state probationer in a Connecticut correctional facility until he/she can be returned to the sending state." This issue was the subject of an informal opinion dated April 16, 1987. In addition, you have requested that we review the attached form and procedures pertaining to the detention, incarceration and processing of a probationer under the Interstate Compact. After a review of the relevant law, we have determined that it is not necessary to obtain a warrant from a Connecticut court in order to take custody of a and confine and out-of-state probationer prior to a return to the sending state. We have also determined that the proposed procedures and processing form conform to the requirements of Conn. Gen. Stat. §54-132 et seq. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 54-132 et seq. represents Connecticut's statutory ratification of the Interstate Supervision Compact. Connecticut became a signatory to the Compact on November 6, 1943. Lilley v. Platt, 17 Conn. Supp. 101, 103, (1950). The purpose of the Compact as described by a New York court is "to benefit a probationer by permitting to reside and be supervised in the state where he has familial and community ties and thus greater employment possibilities. In consideration of this privilege it is fair and proper that the probationer be bound by the terms of the Interstate Compact with respect to his return to the sentencing state." People v. Bynul, 524 N.Y.S.2d 321, 324, 138 Misc. 2d. 326 (N.Y. City Crim. Ct. 1987). Conn. Gen. Stat. § 54-133(a)(3) provides (3) that duly accredited officers of a sending state may, at all times, enter a receiving state1 and there apprehend and retake any person on probation or parole, and for that purpose no formalities shall be required other...