Wyoming Statute § 7-3-101, part of the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act adopted in Wyoming, outlines the process for apprehending and detaining fugitives from justice. When a person is arrested in Wyoming on a warrant issued by another state, the arresting officer or authority must, without unnecessary delay, take the arrested person before a judge or magistrate. The judge or magistrate then informs the arrested person of the charge, the demand for their surrender, and their right to a habeas corpus proceeding. If the arrested person is not immediately brought before a judge, the law requires prompt presentment. This presentment is crucial for ensuring the due process rights of the individual are protected. The initial arrest itself is based on a warrant from the demanding state, but the subsequent judicial review in the asylum state (Wyoming in this case) is a critical step in the extradition process, confirming the identity of the accused and the validity of the warrant. Failure to promptly present the arrested individual to a judicial officer can lead to their release, as it violates the statutory requirement for due process.

Wyoming’s extradition process is governed by statutes that align with the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act, as adopted in Wyoming. The fundamental principle is that a person charged with a crime in one state who flees to another state is subject to extradition. Wyoming Statute §7-3-101 outlines the requirements for demanding extradition. A governor’s warrant is the official document initiating the extradition process. Upon arrest, the accused must be informed of the demand for their surrender and the accusation against them. While the accused can waive extradition, this waiver must be voluntary and knowing. The primary legal basis for challenging an extradition in Wyoming, as in most states, centers on whether the person arrested is substantially the same individual named in the extradition documents, whether the person was in the demanding state at the time of the commission of the crime, and whether the person is charged with a crime in the demanding state. Wyoming law does not permit extradition for civil matters or for individuals who have not been formally charged with a crime. The role of the Wyoming Attorney General’s office is crucial in reviewing extradition requests before the Governor issues a warrant. The concept of “fugitive from justice” is central; the individual must have been present in the demanding state when the crime was committed and subsequently departed. The specific procedural safeguards are designed to prevent unlawful detainment and ensure due process, even within the framework of interstate rendition.

Wyoming’s extradition process is governed by statutes that align with the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act, as adopted in Wyoming. The core principle is that a person charged with a crime in one state who flees to another state can be apprehended and returned to the demanding state. The process typically begins with a formal demand from the executive authority of the demanding state, accompanied by a copy of the indictment, information, affidavit, or judgment of conviction and sentence, authenticated by the executive authority of the demanding state. Upon receipt of such a demand, the Governor of Wyoming must review the documentation. If the demand is in order and the person is found to be in Wyoming, the Governor may issue a warrant for the arrest of the fugitive. The arrested person then has the right to challenge the legality of their detention through a writ of habeas corpus. The court, in a habeas corpus proceeding, will examine whether the person is the same one named in the rendition warrant and whether the person was substantially charged with a crime in the demanding state. Crucially, the court does not delve into the guilt or innocence of the accused. Wyoming law, consistent with federal precedent, permits extradition even if the alleged crime was committed by an individual who was not physically present in the demanding state at the time of the commission of the crime, provided that the individual’s actions outside the demanding state were intended to result in a crime within that state and did result in a crime there. This concept is often referred to as “constructive presence” or acting as an accessory before the fact. Therefore, if an individual in Wyoming conspires with others in Colorado to commit fraud in Colorado, and that fraud is consummated, Wyoming would likely honor a demand from Colorado for that individual’s extradition, even if the individual never physically entered Colorado. The focus is on the commission of the crime, not necessarily the physical presence of the accused in the demanding state at the moment the crime was committed.

Wyoming’s Uniform Criminal Extradition Act, codified at Wyoming Statutes Annotated (W.S.A.) § 7-3-201 et seq., governs the process of extraditing individuals accused or convicted of crimes in other states. A crucial aspect of this act concerns the demand for extradition and the supporting documentation required. When a person is sought for a crime committed in another state, the demanding state must present a formal demand to the executive authority of Wyoming. This demand must be accompanied by specific documentation to establish probable cause. According to W.S.A. § 7-3-202, the demand must be accompanied by a copy of the indictment, an information and in either case a warrant, or a complaint made before a magistrate, authenticated by the executive authority of the demanding state. Furthermore, if the accused has been convicted of a crime and is a fugitive from justice, the demand must be accompanied by a copy of the judgment of conviction or sentence, and such facts as the executive authority of the demanding state deems sufficient to prove the identity of the person sought and the fact that he has fled from justice. The statute also allows for a sworn statement of fact by a credible person to establish probable cause, which is often the basis for an arrest warrant in the asylum state. The absence of any of these core authenticated documents, particularly the indictment, information, warrant, or judgment of conviction/sentence, renders the demand legally insufficient for formal extradition proceedings. Therefore, the core requirement is the authentication of the charging document or conviction record by the executive authority of the demanding state.

The scenario involves a fugitive, Mr. Silas Croft, who has fled from Wyoming to Montana after being charged with a felony in Wyoming. Wyoming, as a demanding state, must present a formal application for extradition to Montana, the asylum state. This application is governed by the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by both states. The UCEA, and by extension Wyoming Statute § 7-3-201, mandates that the demanding state’s executive authority (the Governor) must issue a warrant for the fugitive’s arrest. This warrant must be based upon a sworn accusation, which can be an indictment, an information supported by a verified complaint, or a complaint made before a magistrate, accompanied by an affidavit or affidavits. The core of the extradition process requires the demanding state to demonstrate that the person sought is substantially charged with a crime in the demanding state. The question focuses on the procedural prerequisite for Montana to honor Wyoming’s request. Montana, as the asylum state, will review Wyoming’s extradition request. For the request to be valid under the UCEA and federal law (Article IV, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution), the documentation must establish that the accused was present in Wyoming at the time of the commission of the alleged crime and thereafter fled from justice. The specific documentation that must accompany the demand from the demanding state’s executive authority is crucial. Wyoming Statute § 7-3-205 outlines the necessary documents. These include a copy of the indictment, information, or complaint and affidavit, and a copy of the warrant issued in Wyoming. Furthermore, the demanding state’s executive authority must certify that the accompanying documents are authentic and that the person sought is substantially charged with a crime. The question specifically asks what Montana’s governor must be satisfied with to issue the arrest warrant. The critical element is the proof that the person sought was present in Wyoming when the crime was committed and then fled. This is the fundamental basis for interstate extradition. The absence of this proof, or its inadequate presentation, would be grounds for denying the extradition. Therefore, the governor of Montana must be satisfied that the individual is substantially charged with a crime in Wyoming and that the person fled from justice.

The scenario describes a fugitive, Elias Thorne, who has allegedly committed a felony in Wyoming and has fled to Montana. Wyoming, as a demanding state, must initiate the extradition process by formally requesting the return of Thorne from Montana, the asylum state. This process is governed by the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by both states, and Article IV, Section 2, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution. The Wyoming governor must issue a formal written demand for Thorne’s arrest and surrender. This demand must be accompanied by a copy of the indictment found, or an information supported by a deposition, or an affidavit made before a magistrate, substantially charging Thorne with having committed a crime under Wyoming law. Furthermore, the demand must also include a copy of the judgment of conviction or sentence rendered against Thorne, if he has been convicted and has escaped or fled from justice. The accompanying documents must authenticate the crime and Thorne’s presence in Wyoming at the time of its commission. The demanding state’s governor must also certify that the person sought is a fugitive from justice. Upon receiving the demand, the governor of Montana will review it. If the demand is in order and Thorne is found in Montana, Montana’s governor will issue a warrant for Thorne’s arrest. Thorne will then have the opportunity to challenge his extradition in Montana courts, typically through a writ of habeas corpus, where the court will determine if the demanding state has met the statutory requirements for extradition and if Thorne is indeed the person named in the warrant. The key is the formal demand by the Wyoming governor, supported by legally sufficient documentation, which initiates the entire process.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), as adopted and modified by Wyoming, governs the process of returning fugitives from justice to states where they are accused or convicted of crimes. Wyoming Statute § 7-3-201 outlines the requirements for a valid rendition warrant issued by the Governor. For an individual to be extradited, the demanding state must provide documentation establishing that the person was present in the demanding state at the time of the commission of the crime and that the person is a fugitive from justice. This documentation typically includes an indictment, an information supported by a deposition, or a complaint made under oath before a magistrate, accompanied by a copy of the judgment of conviction or a sentence. The key here is the presence in the demanding state at the time of the offense. If a person commits a crime in Colorado but is physically in Wyoming, Wyoming’s governor can issue a rendition warrant. The fact that the individual has never physically been in Colorado, but committed a crime there through an act or omission that produced the effect of the crime in Colorado, is sufficient to establish them as a fugitive from justice under the UCEA. The demanding state’s affidavit must attest to the commission of the crime and the individual’s presence in that state at that time. Therefore, if the affidavit from Colorado clearly states that the alleged conspiracy and subsequent fraudulent transactions, which constitute the crime, occurred within Colorado and involved actions initiated by the accused while physically present in Wyoming, it establishes the necessary connection for extradition. The Governor of Wyoming, upon review of the documentation, must be satisfied that the person is substantially charged with a crime in the demanding state and is a fugitive from justice. The absence of physical presence in Colorado at the exact moment of the alleged crime’s inception does not preclude extradition if the individual’s actions, even if initiated from Wyoming, directly resulted in the commission of a crime within Colorado.

The scenario involves an individual, Elias Thorne, who is sought for a felony offense in Montana and has been apprehended in Wyoming. The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), as adopted by Wyoming statutes, governs this process. The key legal principle here is that the demanding state (Montana) must prove the accused is the person named in the rendition warrant and that they are substantially charged with a crime in the demanding state. Wyoming’s role is to facilitate this process, ensuring due process for the accused. The governor of Wyoming issues the rendition warrant, and the accused has the right to challenge the legality of their detention through a writ of habeas corpus. In such a proceeding, the scope of inquiry is limited to determining if the person is substantially charged, if they are the person named in the warrant, and if the warrant is valid. The fact that Elias Thorne might have been physically present in Montana at the time of the alleged offense is a factual determination for the demanding state’s courts, not for the Wyoming court in a habeas corpus proceeding related to extradition. Wyoming courts do not determine guilt or innocence. Therefore, the Wyoming governor’s authority to issue the rendition warrant is predicated on Montana’s certification of the indictment or affidavit, the governor’s issuance of a warrant, and the arrest of Thorne in Wyoming. The governor’s decision to issue the warrant is largely ministerial, based on the documentation presented by the demanding state, and the habeas corpus review in Wyoming is narrowly focused on procedural regularity and identity, not on the merits of the underlying charges or the accused’s presence in the demanding state at the time of the offense. The crucial element is that Montana has properly initiated the extradition process by certifying the charge and requesting Thorne’s return.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by Wyoming, governs the process of returning fugitives from justice. Wyoming Statute § 7-3-101 outlines the requirements for an extradition demand. For a valid demand, the asylum state’s governor must receive a copy of the indictment found, or an information supported by proof, or a complaint made before a magistrate, accompanied by an affidavit, stating the offense charged. Furthermore, the demand must include a copy of the judgment of conviction or sentence, if the fugitive has been convicted and escaped or fled from justice after imprisonment or acceptance of bail. In this scenario, Ms. Anya Sharma is sought for an alleged probation violation in Colorado. Probation violation, while a serious matter, is typically handled through a specific revocation process rather than a direct extradition demand for a new offense. The core of extradition under the UCEA focuses on fugitives charged with or convicted of a crime in the demanding state. A probation violation is an alleged breach of the terms of a previously imposed sentence, not a new criminal charge in the same vein as a felony or misdemeanor that would initiate a standard extradition. The demanding state must establish that the individual is substantially charged with a crime. While a probation violation can lead to a warrant for arrest and potential incarceration, the procedural framework for returning someone for a violation of probation often differs from the formal interstate rendition process required for new criminal charges or escape after conviction. Therefore, the absence of a formal charge for a new offense, or a conviction and escape, makes the extradition demand potentially deficient under the UCEA’s stringent requirements for interstate rendition. The question hinges on whether a probation violation, as described, constitutes a “crime” for the purposes of initiating a UCEA extradition demand without a new charging instrument. Generally, extradition is for those accused of a crime or convicted of a crime and then fleeing. A violation of probation is a separate legal category, and its extradition process might be governed by specific interstate agreements or different statutory interpretations, but it doesn’t automatically fit the standard UCEA framework without further qualification or a new charge.

Wyoming’s Uniform Criminal Extradition Act, codified in Wyoming Statutes Title 7, Chapter 11, governs the process of returning fugitives to demanding states. A crucial aspect is the governor’s role. When a demand for extradition is made by the executive authority of another state, the Wyoming governor must issue a warrant for the arrest of the person charged. This warrant must substantially charge the person with a crime under the laws of the demanding state. The Act, specifically Wyoming Statute § 7-11-104, outlines the requirements for the demanding state’s application, which typically includes a copy of the indictment, information, or affidavit charging the offense, sworn to by the complainant and accompanied by a copy of the warrant, if any. Furthermore, the demanding state must also provide a copy of the judgment of conviction or sentence, if the fugitive has been convicted and has escaped from confinement or broken the terms of bail, probation, or parole. The governor’s warrant is the legal authority for the arrest and subsequent delivery of the fugitive. The process ensures that individuals accused of crimes are held accountable and are not shielded from justice by crossing state lines. The governor’s review is a critical checkpoint to ensure the demand is regular and that the person is indeed charged with a crime in the demanding jurisdiction. This ensures due process is observed before a person is removed from Wyoming.

The core of this question lies in understanding the procedural requirements for initiating an extradition from Wyoming under the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act, as adopted by Wyoming statute. Specifically, it addresses the role of the Governor in issuing a warrant and the evidence required to support such a warrant. Wyoming Statute § 7-3-106 outlines that the demand for extradition must be accompanied by a copy of the indictment found or by an information supported by affidavit, charging the accused with a crime. The demanding state’s executive authority must also certify that the person is a fugitive from justice. The Governor of the asylum state (Wyoming, in this case) then reviews this documentation. If the Governor finds that the demand is in order and that the accused has been substantially charged with a crime and is a fugitive, the Governor will issue a warrant for the arrest of the accused. This warrant is the formal instrument authorizing law enforcement to take the person into custody for extradition proceedings. The governor’s warrant must be based on the submitted documentation, not on independent investigation or hearsay not presented by the demanding state. Therefore, the absence of a sworn affidavit or indictment accompanying the demand from California would render the demand procedurally insufficient under Wyoming law, preventing the Governor from lawfully issuing the arrest warrant.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by Wyoming and most other states, governs the process of interstate rendition of fugitives. A crucial aspect of this act is the requirement for a formal demand from the demanding state’s executive authority. This demand must be accompanied by a copy of the indictment found, information or complaint, or any warrant issued, charging the accused with a crime. Wyoming Statute §7-3-106 specifies the requirements for such a demand. Specifically, it mandates that the demanding state’s governor must issue a warrant of arrest, and this warrant must be accompanied by the charging document. The charging document must be authenticated by the demanding governor. In this scenario, Governor Abernathy of Colorado has requested the return of Ms. Anya Sharma for a felony theft charge. The documentation provided by Colorado includes a sworn affidavit from the arresting officer in Colorado detailing the alleged crime, but it does not include a certified copy of the indictment or a formal information filed in Colorado’s courts. Wyoming’s law, as codified in the UCEA and interpreted through case law, requires the charging instrument itself to be properly authenticated by the demanding governor. An affidavit from an arresting officer, while potentially evidence of the crime, does not serve as the formal charging document required for extradition under the UCEA. Therefore, the absence of a certified copy of the indictment or a formal information authenticated by the demanding governor renders the extradition request procedurally deficient under Wyoming law. The proper procedure would involve Colorado providing a certified copy of the indictment or information that formally charges Ms. Sharma, along with the governor’s authentication.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted in Wyoming as Wyoming Statutes Annotated (W.S.A.) Chapter 10, Article 3, governs the process of interstate rendition. A crucial aspect of this act is the requirement for a formal demand from the demanding state. This demand must be accompanied by specific documentation, including a copy of the indictment found, an information supported by a deposition, or a warrant of arrest, accompanied by either an affidavit made before a magistrate or an abstract of court record. The person sought must be charged with a crime in the demanding state. In this scenario, the governor of Montana, acting on behalf of Montana, must present a formal written demand to the governor of Wyoming. This demand must be supported by a sworn affidavit that clearly states the individual, Mr. Silas Croft, is charged with the crime of vehicular manslaughter in Montana. The affidavit must be made before a Montana magistrate, establishing probable cause for the charge. Without this foundational sworn document attesting to the criminal charge in Montana, Wyoming’s governor lacks the legal basis to issue a warrant for arrest and subsequent extradition. Therefore, the absence of a sworn affidavit before a magistrate in Montana, detailing the vehicular manslaughter charge, renders the extradition request procedurally deficient under the UCEA as adopted by Wyoming.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by Wyoming, governs the process of returning fugitives from justice from one state to another. Wyoming Statute § 7-3-101 establishes that a person charged with a crime in another state who has fled from justice and is found in Wyoming may be arrested and delivered to the demanding state. The process begins with a demand from the executive authority of the demanding state, accompanied by a copy of the indictment, information, affidavit, or judgment of conviction, authenticated by the executive authority. The Wyoming governor then issues a warrant for the arrest of the fugitive. Crucially, the UCEA, as implemented in Wyoming, does not grant the fugitive the right to a pre-extradition hearing before a Wyoming court on the merits of the charge in the demanding state. The scope of inquiry by the Wyoming court in a habeas corpus proceeding is limited to whether the fugitive is substantially charged with a crime in the demanding state, whether the fugitive is the person named in the warrant, and whether the warrant is valid. The Wyoming governor’s role is ministerial in issuing the warrant upon proper demand, though they retain discretion. The question tests the understanding of the limited judicial review available to a fugitive in Wyoming during an extradition process, specifically focusing on what aspects of the demanding state’s case can be challenged.

Wyoming’s Uniform Criminal Extradition Act, codified at Wyoming Statutes Annotated (W.S.A.) § 7-3-101 et seq., governs the process of returning fugitives from justice to other states. A critical aspect of this process involves the governor’s warrant, which is the formal document authorizing the arrest and transfer of an individual sought by another state. The demanding state must provide specific documentation to support its request. This documentation typically includes a copy of the indictment, an information supported by a deposition, or a judgment of conviction or sentence, along with a statement of the facts showing the commission of the offense. Crucially, the demanding state’s executive authority, usually the governor, must certify that the accompanying documents are authentic and that the person sought is a fugitive from justice. Wyoming law, mirroring the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act, requires that the person arrested be informed of the accusation against them and their right to demand legal counsel and to have a writ of habeas corpus. The governor of Wyoming may issue a warrant for the apprehension of a person charged with a crime in another state, provided the demanding state has complied with the statutory requirements. The warrant must substantially conform to the requirements of the Act, ensuring clarity regarding the offense and the identity of the fugitive.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted in Wyoming as Wyoming Statutes Annotated (W.S.A.) § 7-3-201 et seq., governs the process of extraditing individuals accused or convicted of crimes across state lines. A crucial aspect of this process involves the documentation required by the demanding state. When a person is sought for a crime committed in the demanding state, the governor of the demanding state must issue a formal written demand to the governor of the asylum state. This demand must be accompanied by specific supporting documents. According to W.S.A. § 7-3-208, these documents must include a copy of the indictment found, or an information supported by affidavit, or a complaint before a magistrate, charging the accused with the commission of the crime. Additionally, the demand must be accompanied by a copy of the warrant issued by the demanding state’s judicial officer, if any, and a statement by the executive authority of the demanding state that the accused was present in the demanding state at the time of the commission of the alleged crime, and that thereafter the accused fled from justice. The question focuses on the procedural requirement for the demanding state’s governor to attest to the accused’s presence in the demanding state at the time of the offense and subsequent flight. This attestation is a foundational element ensuring that the demanding state has jurisdiction and that the extradition is not based on a false premise. The absence or deficiency of this specific statement can be grounds for challenging the extradition.

Wyoming’s extradition laws are primarily governed by the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act, as codified in Wyoming Statutes Chapter 7, Article 11. This act, adopted by many states, provides a standardized framework for the interstate rendition of fugitives. A crucial aspect of this framework is the requirement for a formal demand from the executive authority of the demanding state. This demand must be accompanied by a copy of the indictment, information, affidavit, or any other accusation made against the accused in the demanding state. Furthermore, the demand must include a copy of the judgment of conviction or sentence imposed in the demanding state, if the fugitive has been convicted and has escaped or fled from justice after conviction. The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act also specifies the procedures for arrest and commitment of the accused in the asylum state, including the issuance of a warrant by a judge or magistrate. The accused is entitled to a hearing to determine if they are the person named in the warrant and if they are a fugitive from justice. The burden of proof at this hearing rests with the demanding state. Wyoming law, consistent with the Uniform Act, emphasizes due process for the individual sought in extradition proceedings. The role of the Wyoming Governor is central in reviewing extradition requests from other states and issuing warrants for rendition. Conversely, when Wyoming seeks a fugitive from another state, its Governor makes the formal demand. The question probes the specific documentation required for a formal demand from a demanding state under Wyoming law, which aligns with the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act’s provisions. The correct documentation includes the indictment or accusation and, if applicable, the judgment of conviction or sentence.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by Wyoming, outlines the procedures for interstate rendition. Wyoming Statute §7-3-101 et seq. governs these proceedings. A crucial aspect is the demand for extradition, which must be accompanied by specific documentation. According to the UCEA and Wyoming law, the demanding state’s executive authority (typically the Governor) must issue a formal written demand. This demand must be accompanied by a copy of the indictment found, or an information or complaint made before a magistrate of the demanding state, charging the accused with having committed a crime therein. Additionally, the demand must include a copy of the warrant issued upon such indictment, information, or complaint, or in lieu of the warrant, a copy of the judgment of conviction or sentence. The critical element for initial arrest on a fugitive warrant is the presence of an affidavit or complaint sworn to before a magistrate of the demanding state, alleging that the accused has committed a crime in the demanding state. The question specifies that the affidavit is sworn before a Wyoming magistrate, not a magistrate of the demanding state. This procedural defect, specifically the lack of a sworn affidavit before a magistrate of the demanding state accompanying the demand, renders the initial arrest and subsequent detention based solely on the Governor’s warrant, without this prerequisite document, unlawful under the framework of interstate rendition as established by the UCEA and Wyoming’s adoption thereof. Therefore, the accused cannot be lawfully held for extradition under these circumstances.

The core of interstate extradition, governed by Article IV, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution and further detailed by federal statute (18 U.S. Code § 3182), requires that a person charged with a crime in one state who flees to another state must be delivered up to the demanding state upon the proper requisition of the executive authority of the state from which they fled. Wyoming, like all states, operates under these federal mandates, as codified in its own statutes, such as Wyoming Statute § 7-3-201 et seq. The process involves the executive authority of the demanding state (the Governor) issuing a formal written demand for the fugitive. This demand must be accompanied by a copy of the indictment found or an affidavit made before a magistrate of the demanding state, charging the fugitive with having committed a crime. Crucially, the indictment or affidavit must substantially charge the person with having committed a crime under the laws of the demanding state. If the fugitive is found in Wyoming, the Governor of Wyoming, upon the presentation of this proper requisition, will issue a warrant for the arrest of the fugitive. The question hinges on the validity of the demand and the supporting documentation. A key procedural safeguard is the requirement that the person sought be formally charged with a crime in the demanding state. If the documentation accompanying the requisition from Colorado does not sufficiently allege a crime under Colorado law, or if it is based on an unsubstantiated accusation rather than a formal charge like an indictment or an affidavit sworn before a magistrate alleging criminal conduct, the Governor of Wyoming would be within their authority to deny the extradition. The principle is that extradition is for those formally accused of crimes, not for individuals facing mere civil disputes or uncharged allegations. Therefore, the absence of a formal charge, such as an indictment or a magistrate-sworn affidavit, renders the requisition legally insufficient for extradition purposes.

Wyoming’s extradition process is governed by the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act, codified in Wyoming Statutes Annotated (Wyo. Stat. Ann.) § 7-3-101 et seq. This act outlines the procedures for demanding and surrendering fugitives from justice. A key aspect of this process involves the governor’s role in issuing or denying an extradition warrant. When a person is arrested in Wyoming on a charge of committing a crime in another state, the demanding state must submit a formal request for extradition. This request typically includes an indictment, an information supported by an affidavit, or a complaint made before a magistrate, accompanied by a copy of the warrant issued in the demanding state. The Wyoming governor then reviews this documentation. If the governor finds that the documents are in order and that the person sought is indeed a fugitive from justice charged with a crime in the demanding state, the governor will issue an extradition warrant. This warrant authorizes the arrest and delivery of the fugitive to the agent of the demanding state. However, the accused has the right to challenge the extradition through a writ of habeas corpus. The grounds for challenging extradition are limited, focusing primarily on whether the person is substantially charged with a crime in the demanding state and whether they are a fugitive from justice. The Wyoming governor’s decision to issue or deny the warrant is based on the legal sufficiency of the demanding state’s documentation and the fugitive status of the individual. The governor does not determine guilt or innocence.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by Wyoming and most other states, governs the process of interstate rendition. Wyoming Statute § 7-3-101 et seq. outlines the specific procedures and requirements. A critical aspect of extradition is the demand made by the executive authority of the demanding state. This demand must be accompanied by a copy of the indictment found or by an information supported by an affidavit. The indictment or information must substantially charge the person with having committed a crime in the demanding state. Furthermore, the demand must include a copy of the judgment of conviction or sentence. For a person convicted and escaped, the judgment of conviction and a statement by the executive authority that the person has escaped from lawful custody are required. The question presents a scenario where a fugitive, previously convicted in Colorado for felony theft, escaped from a Colorado correctional facility and is apprehended in Wyoming. The Colorado authorities submit a demand for extradition. The demand includes a certified copy of the judgment of conviction and a sworn statement from the Governor of Colorado detailing the escape. This documentation fulfills the requirements for extraditing a convicted fugitive under the UCEA as adopted in Wyoming. The demand is legally sufficient because it establishes that the individual was convicted of a crime in Colorado, was lawfully in custody, and subsequently escaped. The provided documentation directly addresses these elements, making the extradition request valid under Wyoming law, which aligns with the principles of interstate cooperation in criminal matters.

Wyoming’s extradition laws are primarily governed by the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act, as codified in Wyoming Statutes Annotated (W.S.A.) Chapter 3, Title 7. The process of demanding extradition involves the executive authority of the demanding state presenting a formal request to the executive authority of the asylum state. This request must be accompanied by a copy of the indictment found, an information or complaint, and a judgment of conviction or sentence, along with a statement of the facts showing the commission of the offense. Crucially, the documents must be authenticated by the executive authority of the demanding state. W.S.A. § 7-3-102 outlines the requirements for the demanding state’s application. The governor of Wyoming, upon receiving a proper application, issues a warrant for the arrest of the accused. The arresting officer must then inform the accused of the cause of their arrest and provide a copy of the warrant. The accused has the right to demand a review of the legality of their arrest and detention by habeas corpus. During this review, the court will examine whether the person is lawfully charged with a crime in the demanding state and if the documents presented meet the statutory requirements. A key aspect of this review is ensuring the identity of the accused and that they are the person sought by the demanding state. The governor’s decision to surrender the individual is based on the sufficiency of the documentation and the evidence presented. If the governor finds the documentation to be in order and the individual to be the subject of the warrant, the individual is to be surrendered to the agent of the demanding state. The law also addresses situations where the person sought may be in custody in Wyoming for another offense, or if the person is not found in the demanding state at the time of the alleged commission of the crime. Wyoming law, like most states adopting the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act, does not permit extradition for civil matters or for offenses committed solely within Wyoming that are alleged to have occurred in the demanding state. The focus remains on ensuring that the demanding state has properly charged an offense under its laws and that the individual sought is the person accused.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted in Wyoming under Wyoming Statutes Title 7, Chapter 3, governs the process of extraditing individuals accused or convicted of crimes across state lines. A crucial aspect of this act is the requirement for the demanding state to provide specific documentation to the asylum state. Wyoming Statute § 7-3-108 mandates that the governor of the demanding state must furnish an application for extradition accompanied by a copy of the indictment found, or an information supported by deposition, or by a complaint before a magistrate, showing that the accused has been charged with a crime. This documentation must also include a copy of the judgment of conviction or sentence, or an order of probation, if the accused has been convicted and has escaped or violated probation. The statute further specifies that these documents must be authenticated by the executive authority of the demanding state. The presence of a photograph and fingerprints of the accused, while often included and helpful for identification, is not a strictly mandatory constitutional or statutory prerequisite for the initial issuance of a governor’s warrant under the UCEA in Wyoming. The core requirement is the formal accusation or conviction and its authentication. Therefore, the absence of a photograph and fingerprints, while potentially causing administrative delays or requests for additional information, does not render the extradition request legally invalid from its inception if the other statutory requirements are met. The process prioritizes the formal legal charging document and its authentication by the executive authority.

Wyoming’s Uniform Criminal Extradition Act, as codified in Wyoming Statutes Title 7, Chapter 3, outlines the procedures for interstate rendition of fugitives. A critical aspect of this process involves the governor’s role and the documentation required for a valid demand for extradition. When a person is charged with a crime in one state and flees to another, the demanding state’s governor must issue a formal written demand to the asylum state’s governor. This demand must be accompanied by specific authenticated documents. According to Wyoming Statute § 7-3-102, the demand must be accompanied by a copy of the indictment found, or an information supported by an affidavit, or by a complaint made before a magistrate of the demanding state, together with a warrant issued thereupon. Furthermore, the statute mandates that the copy of the indictment, information, affidavit, or complaint must be authenticated by the executive authority of the demanding state, meaning the governor. This authentication ensures the legal validity and accuracy of the presented charges. Without this gubernatorial authentication of the supporting documents, the demand is procedurally deficient, and the asylum state’s governor cannot legally order the arrest and rendition of the accused. Therefore, the absence of the demanding governor’s authentication renders the extradition request invalid under Wyoming law.

Wyoming’s extradition laws are primarily governed by the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act, as codified in Wyoming Statutes Annotated (W.S.A.) Chapter 9, Title 7. The process begins with a demand from the demanding state’s executive authority, typically the governor, accompanied by a copy of the indictment or an affidavit made before a magistrate, charging the person sought with a crime. The accused must be substantially charged with a crime in the demanding state. W.S.A. § 7-3-101 outlines that the person must be charged with treason, felony, or other crime. The governor of Wyoming, upon receiving the demand, may issue a warrant for the arrest of the person. W.S.A. § 7-3-104 details the arrest procedure. The accused is then brought before a judge or magistrate who must inform them of the complaint, the demand, the charge, and their right to have the writ of habeas corpus. W.S.A. § 7-3-107. The judge then determines if the person is the one named in the warrant and if they are substantially charged with a crime in the demanding state. The key inquiry for the judge is whether the person is substantially charged and if they are the person sought. The judge cannot inquire into the guilt or innocence of the accused. If the judge finds these conditions met, they will commit the person to jail for a period not exceeding thirty days, pending the issuance of a governor’s warrant. W.S.A. § 7-3-108. If the person is not arrested under a governor’s warrant within that period, they may be discharged. W.S.A. § 7-3-109. The governor’s warrant is the final executive authority to deliver the person to the demanding state’s authorities.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted in Wyoming as Wyo. Stat. Ann. §§ 7-3-201 through 7-3-225, governs the process of interstate extradition. A critical aspect of this process involves the documentation required for the demanding state to present to the asylum state. Wyoming law, consistent with the UCEA, mandates specific documents to support an extradition request. These documents must include an affidavit made before a magistrate, substantially charging the person sought with having committed a crime in the demanding state. Additionally, a copy of the indictment, information, or complaint, and any warrant issued thereon, is required. The law also specifies that the person sought must be formally charged with a crime under the laws of the demanding state. The Governor of the demanding state must issue a formal requisition for the person’s return. The question hinges on identifying which of the listed items is *not* a mandatory component of a valid Wyoming extradition request originating from another state. While a warrant is typically issued, the core legal basis for the demand rests on the charging document (indictment, information, or complaint) and the affidavit establishing probable cause, all supported by the demanding state’s governor’s requisition. A simple arrest warrant, without the underlying charging instrument and affidavit, is insufficient for initiating extradition proceedings under the UCEA framework as implemented in Wyoming. The affidavit, indictment/information/complaint, and warrant issued upon those are the essential legal predicates for the extradition process.

Wyoming’s extradition process is governed by statutes that mirror the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act, adopted in Wyoming as Chapter 10 of Title 7 of the Wyoming Statutes Annotated. The core of extradition involves a request from the demanding state, which must be accompanied by a formal accusation, such as an indictment or an information, or a judgment of conviction and a sentence. The accused must be charged with a crime committed in the demanding state. Wyoming law, specifically Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 7-10-104, outlines the requirements for the demanding governor’s warrant. This warrant must substantially charge the person with having committed a crime under the law of the demanding state. Furthermore, the warrant must be accompanied by a copy of the charging document (indictment, information, or complaint) and, if the person has been convicted, by a copy of the judgment of conviction or sentence. The demanding state’s governor must authenticate these documents. When a person is arrested in Wyoming on an extradition warrant, they have the right to challenge the legality of their detention through a writ of habeas corpus. The grounds for challenging extradition are limited, generally focusing on whether the person is the one named in the warrant, whether the person was in the demanding state when the crime was committed, and whether the warrant is in proper order. The question focuses on the sufficiency of the charging document as presented by the demanding state. A conviction in the demanding state, accompanied by a judgment and sentence, fulfills the requirement of demonstrating a crime for which extradition is sought, even if the specific details of the underlying conduct are not exhaustively detailed in the warrant itself, provided the warrant references the conviction and sentence.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by Wyoming, governs the process of interstate rendition. A crucial aspect of this act concerns the requirements for a valid rendition warrant issued by the demanding state’s executive authority. Wyoming Statute §7-3-201, mirroring the UCEA, outlines these requirements. For a fugitive from justice in Wyoming to be extradited to another state, the demanding state’s governor must issue a formal warrant. This warrant must be accompanied by a sworn complaint or indictment, charging the accused with a crime. Furthermore, the warrant must be accompanied by a copy of the indictment or information, or by a sworn affidavit made before a magistrate of the demanding state, detailing the facts constituting the crime. This documentation must also demonstrate that the accused was present in the demanding state at the time of the commission of the alleged offense. The warrant itself must be under the seal of the demanding state’s governor. The question focuses on the specific documentation that must accompany the governor’s rendition warrant. Wyoming law, through its adoption of the UCEA, mandates that the warrant be supported by a copy of the indictment or information, or by a sworn affidavit detailing the alleged crime and affirming the accused’s presence in the demanding state at the time of the offense. This ensures a prima facie case for the fugitive’s presence and culpability in the demanding jurisdiction, providing a basis for the governor’s warrant.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by Wyoming as Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 7-3-201 et seq., governs the process of extraditing individuals accused or convicted of crimes across state lines. A crucial aspect of this process is the demand for extradition, which must be accompanied by specific documentation. According to Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 7-3-211, the demand must be accompanied by a copy of the indictment, an information or an affidavit made before a magistrate of the demanding state, together with such other evidence of the commission of the offense as the governor of the demanding state deems sufficient. The question asks about the minimum documentation required for a valid extradition demand to Wyoming. The law specifies that a copy of the indictment, information, or affidavit made before a magistrate in the demanding state, along with supporting evidence deemed sufficient by the demanding governor, constitutes the necessary documentation. Therefore, a sworn affidavit made before a magistrate in the demanding state, detailing the alleged offense, is a fundamental component. The absence of a sworn affidavit or its equivalent in the demand package would render it insufficient under the UCEA as adopted by Wyoming, preventing the governor of Wyoming from issuing a warrant for arrest and subsequent extradition. The core principle is that the demand must establish probable cause for the fugitive’s apprehension and delivery.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted in Wyoming through Wyoming Statutes Annotated (W.S.A.) Chapter 14, Article 3, governs the process of extraditing individuals accused or convicted of crimes across state lines. A key aspect of this act involves the documentation required for a valid rendition warrant. When a person is charged with a crime in a demanding state and has fled to Wyoming, the demanding state must provide specific assurances that the individual is indeed wanted for a crime committed within their jurisdiction. This typically involves an affidavit made before a magistrate, charging the fugitive with a crime. Additionally, a copy of the indictment or information, supported by sworn proof, or a judgment of conviction or a sentence, along with a statement that the person has escaped or violated parole or probation, must accompany the request. The critical element for establishing probable cause in the demanding state, as required by the UCEA and its interpretation in cases like *Michigan v. Doran*, is the existence of a sworn complaint or affidavit before a magistrate in the demanding state that alleges facts sufficient to establish probable cause that the person committed the offense charged. The rendition warrant issued by the Wyoming governor must be based on this sufficient showing of probable cause. Therefore, the absence of an affidavit or sworn complaint establishing probable cause before a magistrate in the demanding state would render the rendition request legally insufficient.