5.3 Uniform Extradition Act Considerations

     A supervised individual who absconds from a receiving state is a fugitive from justice. The procedures for returning a fugitive to a demanding state can be affected by the Uniform Extradition and Rendition Act (UERA). Under that act, a fugitive may waive all procedural rights incidental to the extradition, for example the issuance of a Governor’s warrant, and consent to return to the state demanding the fugitive. To be valid, the waiver must be in writing, in the presence of a judge, and after the judge has informed the fugitive of his rights under the statute. Nothing in the UERA prevents a person from voluntarily returning to a state. Several courts recognized that ICPP provided an alternative procedure by which a person can be returned to the demanding state without complying with the formalities of the UERA. See In re Klock, 133 Cal App 3d 726 (Cal. Ct. App. 1982); People v. Bynul, 524 N.Y.S.2d 321 (N.Y. Crim. Ct. 1987). See also, Todd v. Florida Parole and Probation Commission, 410 So.2d 584 (Fla. App. 1982). (“[W]hen a person is paroled to another state pursuant to an interstate compact, all requirements to obtain extradition are waived.”) Courts have recognized that compact return provisions operate independently of, and may supersede, formal extradition procedures under the Uniform Extradition Act. Courts interpreting the former Interstate Compact for Probation and Parole similarly held that compact waiver provisions displaced the formal requirements of the Uniform Extradition Act for supervised individuals subject to return. See, e.g., Ex parte Tenner, 128 P.2d 338 (Cal. 1942). Additionally, the supervised individual’s agreement to waive extradition as a condition of relocation eliminates the requirement for formal extradition proceedings upon the sending state’s request for their return.