If a person who has been convicted of a non-Federal felony in one state takes refuge in another state, can the ‘harboring’ state be compelled to extradite him? If so, is there an enforcement mechanism?
Thanks,
Based on the knowledge I have from watching cop shows, the state that has the warrant out decides if it is or isn’t extraditable. If it is, they also decide how far they’ll go to get the person back. As far as I know, the state that has the warrant, has to take care of transporting them back. That is, if you have a warrant in Georgia and get arrested in Florida, it’s up to the department in GA that issued the warrant to decide if they want to drive out and get you (or make other arrangements to bring you back to their jurisdiction).
IOW, unless I’m misunderstanding the question, the state that made the arrest doesn’t send them but rather the state that has the warrant picks them up. So I’m not sure they could be considered ‘harboring’ unless they wouldn’t release them to the office with the warrant.
Can they be compelled? Yes, I think so. But as** Joey P** says, the state that has him doesn’t have to do anything other than hold him for the other state to come get him.
Article IV, Section 2, Clause 2:
Appreciate your answers.
My motivation in asking is with respect to possible state charges/conviction (say, in New York) of an ex-President. I assume nothing would be absolutely clear in such a circumstance although one would hope that ‘the rule of law’ would prevail.
The procedure is found in 18 U.S.C. 3182. According to the Supreme Court in Puerto Rico v. Branstad (1987), the requesting state can seek a federal court order compelling the “harboring” state to comply with its obligations.
But, as noted, the obligations of the “harboring” state is limited to arresting the fugitive and holding him for up to 30 days for the requesting state to come get him.
Besides all the political, inter-state ramifications of refusing to turn over a prisoner to another state, there are also practical reasons to do it.
It is fairly expensive to keep a person in jail, so turning them over to the cops from the other state saves your state money. (Or it frees up a space in jail for your own criminals. Most jails are quite crowded, and often have to release people to make space for newly-arrested people.)
When I was in HS (this means 65 years ago) I was told that SCOTUS has interpreted “shall” to mean, “if they want to”. This is, of course, a total misunderstanding of the English language, but what else is new. More recently, there was a case in which a woman from some state like Iowa murdered her husband (I may have the sexes reversed but it is unimportant to this discussion) in NJ and the NJ court awarded custody of their children to the murdered man’s parents. The murderer’s parents came to NJ and kidnapped the kids and took them to IA. NJ asked for extradition and the IA judge refused saying, in effect, that it was unhealthy for children to be raised in NJ.
So if the crime isn’t serious enough - say you’re wanted for theft, but of a modest amount, or just a ton of speeding tickets - you could leave for another state and be safe.
I wonder if there’s criminals who have managed to rack up a (lower end) felony charge in all 50 states doing this…
You don’t even necessarily have to go to another state. For something like failure to deal with a speeding ticket, the locality that wants you may not even want to waste time sending an officer to another county to pick you up.
But child custody cases are different. Each state has their own laws & Judges to decide ‘what is best for the child’. Instead of just an accused vs. the state, there is a 3rd legal entity involved – the kid(s).
Ths was a common issue for same-sex parents before the SCotUS decision (and still sometimes today). One of a same-sex parents died; their relatives would kidnap the kids and go to a retrograde state, where the courts there would refuse to enforce court orders from the other state.
That’s not quite right. In Kentucky v. Dennison (1861), the Court held that the duty of the “asylum state” to arrest and deliver the fugitive was mandatory under the Constitution, but that the federal government had no authority to compel the “asylum state” to do so. In 1987, the Court reaffirmed the first part of that and overruled the second, holding that the requesting state can seek a federal court order to compel performance.
There’s also a Uniform Criminal Extradition Act that 48 states have passed, which sets out as a matter of Uniform state law, the process for rendition of fugitives from one state to another.
There was a case when Jerry Brown was Governor of California (the first time) where a state refused to extradite a Native American back to California. My google-fu is weak today or I’d have more details.
The person you were responding to seems to have been correct in that 65 years ago, the ruling was there was nothing compelling the state to do so. So it wasn’t quite “if they want to”, but that’s what it essentially was. In 1987, less than 65 years ago, the SC decided that federal courts could compel performance.
This wasn’t child custody; it was kidnapping.
I’m a bit confused with this. If a person had been convicted of a felony in state A, then the only way he would not be incarcerated in state A was if he had escaped, correct? If it was a case of an escaped felon from state A in state B, and said felon had been apprehended, wouldn’t state B want to co-operate with state A as much as possible?
Perhaps not from the other state’s point of view. I remember a case ( it may be the same one) where dad killed mom in NJ , NJ court gave custody to mom’s sister with visitation to dad’s parents in I think Indiana. While the kid was there on a visit , grandparents adopted him through the court in their state. The adoption was ruled invalid after a magazine article was written , but the grandparents did not kidnap the kid .
( there was a book and tv movie about this case called “In A Child’s Name”)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Nope, the felon could be under supervision in State A and gone to State B in violation. Usually state B cooperates - but they also don’t love paying the cost of incarcerating him through the extradition process - which can take a couple of days or more than a month.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk