In the United States, there are two major pieces of legislation that establish the principles of interstate extradition: Article IV of the Constitution and the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act. The Constitution’s extradition clause refers specifically to felonies and other crimes, but the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act goes into more detail. Although the law provides for extradition for misdemeanors, some states choose not to arrest a suspect who has an outstanding warrant unless a felony is involved.
Penalties issued by a state jurisdiction may be obtained by law enforcement officials, who obtain the information by querying the National Center for Crime Information database. If an arrest occurs, the term begins to run and may be deemed to have been served by a court in the state of the offence. Even if the arresting state does not consider the suspect a threat to the community, interstate co-operation agreements create a tacit situation of expected reciprocity, but two states do not comply with the mentioned Uniform Act: Missouri and North Carolina South.
Sample withdrawal order
We were able to confirm with the department that the choice of words in the sample “Restitution order” at the end of this article is sufficient for the time being. It is our hope that the department will eventually issue a standard form for the “reinstatement order” required by law.
AT THE COUNTY COURT OF THE THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
What are the exceptions to extradition?
You can be innocent of any charges you face in another state. Unfortunately, this fact has no influence on the delivery. However, a trained defense attorney may oppose your extradition on any of the following grounds:
- The extradition request documents are not legally correct;
- Someone has charged you with a crime in another state, but the legal system has not charged you with a crime; or
- The extradition request does not name him.
C.
Specialty
Provisions in extradition treaties set the outer limits for permissible actions by states during and after extradition. Despite the likely unenforceability of the political crimes exception (at least in the UK), extradited defendants have still found ways to challenge their extradition within the four corners of the existing extradition treaties. The specialty rule (or “specialty doctrine”) is the most common issue that arises after extradition under a treaty.
The specialty principle, the subject of this essay, is a widely recognized principle of international law that is frequently incorporated into extradition treaties. Once a defendant has been extradited, the specialty prohibits the receiving country “from bringing or making additional charges against any defendant other than those for which he was extradited.” Upon receipt of the extradition request, the surrendering nation will examine the substantive charges specified in the request and “may authorize extradition only for those extraditable offenses listed in the treaty”. In other words: “An accused can only be tried for the crime for which he was transferred from the country of asylum”. The doctrine “generally requires that a surrendering country comply with the restrictions that the surrendering country imposes on law enforcement.” Therefore, by definition, defendants cannot bring specific avoidance actions until extradition is complete and they are prosecuted in the requesting State. The requesting state is responsible for compliance with the specialty principle. However, a required nation may waive the specialization to allow prosecution of offenses in excess of that for which the accused was extradited. In addition, courts have recognized that “outside an extradition treaty, a country may act within the framework of international consensus”.