The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by North Dakota under Chapter 29-31 of the North Dakota Century Code, governs the process of extraditing individuals accused or convicted of crimes across state lines. A crucial aspect of this act concerns the validity of the rendition warrant issued by the demanding state’s governor. For a rendition warrant to be considered valid and legally sufficient for arrest and subsequent extradition, it must be accompanied by a copy of the indictment, information, or affidavit made before a magistrate charging the accused with the commission of the crime in the demanding state. Furthermore, this charging document must be certified as authentic by the executive authority of the demanding state. This certification ensures that the document originates from a legitimate judicial or prosecutorial source within that state and meets the foundational requirements for interstate rendition. Without this authenticated charging document, the rendition process cannot legally commence, as it fails to establish probable cause for the alleged offense in the demanding jurisdiction. The purpose of this requirement is to prevent frivolous or unfounded extradition requests and to ensure that the accused is being sought for a genuine criminal offense.

North Dakota’s Uniform Criminal Extradition Act, codified in Chapter 29-30.1 of the North Dakota Century Code, outlines the procedures for interstate rendition of fugitives. A crucial aspect is the governor’s authority to issue a warrant for the arrest of a person charged with a crime in another state. When a person is arrested in North Dakota on an extradition warrant issued by the North Dakota governor, based on a demand from another state, the arrested individual has certain rights. One such right is to challenge the legality of their detention. This challenge is typically made through a writ of habeas corpus. The grounds for challenging extradition are limited. Under the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act, a person may not be detained for more than a reasonable time without being brought before a court. The Act, specifically referencing Section 29-30.1-10, allows for bail in certain circumstances, but not when the person is charged with a capital offense. The primary legal mechanism for an accused person to contest the validity of their arrest and detention for extradition purposes in North Dakota is through a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. This writ allows a court to review whether the arrest and detention conform to the legal requirements of extradition. The scope of review in such a proceeding is generally narrow, focusing on whether the person is substantially charged with a crime in the demanding state, whether the person is the person named in the extradition warrant, and whether the warrant is in order. The question of guilt or innocence is not at issue during extradition proceedings. The governor of North Dakota, upon receiving a proper demand from the executive authority of another state, must issue his or her own warrant. The person arrested must be committed to jail for a period not exceeding thirty days, during which time the person may apply for a writ of habeas corpus. If no application for a writ of habeas corpus is made within the thirty days, or if after hearing the writ is denied, the person shall be delivered to the agent of the demanding state. The key takeaway is that the arrested individual has a statutory right to challenge the extradition process through habeas corpus, and the governor’s warrant is the initiating document for detention in North Dakota based on an out-of-state charge.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by North Dakota and codified in North Dakota Century Code Chapter 29-31, governs the process of interstate rendition. A key aspect of this act is the requirement for a formal demand from the demanding state, which must include specific documentation. The demanding state’s governor must issue a written requisition, accompanied by a copy of the indictment found, or an information supported by an affidavit, or by a judgment of conviction or a sentence imposed in a criminal prosecution. This documentation must also include a statement that the accused was present in the demanding state at the time of the commission of the alleged crime. North Dakota law, specifically N.D.C.C. § 29-31-04, mandates that the requisition must be accompanied by a copy of the indictment or information, or by a criminal complaint, or by a judgment of conviction or sentence. The critical element for an extradition demand based on a conviction or sentence is the presentation of a judgment of conviction or a sentence imposed in a criminal prosecution, and a statement that the accused was present in the demanding state at the time of the commission of the alleged crime. When the accused is charged with a crime committed in the demanding state but is not present there at the time of its commission, the demand must be accompanied by a copy of an indictment found, or an information supported by affidavit, or by a criminal complaint, showing the commission of the crime. The scenario presented involves a conviction in Montana and subsequent flight to North Dakota. Therefore, the documentation required from Montana would pertain to the conviction and the presence in Montana at the time of the offense.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by North Dakota and codified in North Dakota Century Code Chapter 29-31, governs the process of extraditing individuals accused or convicted of crimes across state lines. A critical aspect of this process involves the determination of whether the individual sought is a “fugitive from justice.” North Dakota law, consistent with the UCEA, defines a fugitive from justice as someone who has committed a crime in one state and then departs from that state, regardless of whether they fled to avoid prosecution or apprehension. The presence of a formal demand from the demanding state, accompanied by the necessary documentation, is a prerequisite for initiating the extradition process. The demanding state must present a copy of an indictment found, or an information supported by a deposition, or a judgment of conviction or a sentence, together with a statement by the executive authority of the demanding state that the person fled from its justice. This documentation serves as the basis for the governor of the asylum state, in this case, North Dakota, to issue a warrant for the arrest of the fugitive. The role of the North Dakota governor is to review the documentation presented by the demanding state’s executive authority. If the documentation is in order and establishes probable cause that the person sought is the person named in the indictment or information, and that the person committed the offense charged, the governor may issue a warrant for the arrest of the person. The focus is on the legal sufficiency of the demanding state’s papers and whether they meet the statutory requirements for extradition, not on the guilt or innocence of the accused. The North Dakota Supreme Court has consistently upheld the principle that the asylum state’s governor’s inquiry is limited to determining whether the person is substantially charged with a crime in the demanding state and whether the demanding state’s papers are in order, not to re-litigate the merits of the case. Therefore, the governor of North Dakota’s primary responsibility is to verify that the demanding state has met the legal prerequisites for extradition as outlined in the UCEA and North Dakota statutes.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by North Dakota, governs the process of extraditing individuals accused or convicted of crimes in other states. A key aspect of this act is the requirement for a formal demand from the demanding state’s executive authority, accompanied by specific documentation. This documentation typically includes a copy of the indictment, information, or complaint, along with any warrant issued. Crucially, for individuals charged by indictment, North Dakota law, mirroring the UCEA, requires that the indictment be substantially charged in accordance with the laws of the demanding state. Furthermore, the demanding state must demonstrate that the person sought was present in that state at the time of the commission of the alleged crime. The governor of North Dakota, upon receiving a proper demand, issues a warrant for the arrest of the fugitive. The fugitive has the right to challenge the legality of their detention through a writ of habeas corpus. In such proceedings, the burden of proof is on the fugitive to demonstrate that they are not the person named in the extradition warrant or that they were not in the demanding state at the time of the offense. The governor’s discretion in extradition matters is primarily ministerial, meaning they must issue the warrant if the demand is legally sufficient. The concept of “presence” in the demanding state is not limited to physical presence at the exact moment of the crime but can include actions taken within that state that contribute to the commission of the crime, even if the final act occurred elsewhere. This is often referred to as constructive presence.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), as adopted and modified by North Dakota, governs the process of extraditing individuals accused of crimes across state lines. A critical aspect of this process involves the governor’s warrant. For an individual to be lawfully held and transported under a governor’s warrant issued by North Dakota, the warrant must be supported by specific documentation. North Dakota law, particularly under N.D.C.C. § 29-30-08, requires that the application for extradition be accompanied by a copy of the indictment found in the demanding state, or an information supported by an affidavit, or by a complaint made before a magistrate in the demanding state, together with a warrant issued thereupon. Furthermore, the demanding state’s documents must establish that the person sought was present in the demanding state at the time of the commission of the alleged crime. Without this foundational proof of presence, the extradition request is legally insufficient. Therefore, the absence of a sworn statement or affidavit confirming the accused’s presence in Montana at the time of the alleged embezzlement would render the North Dakota governor’s warrant defective, as it fails to meet the statutory requirement for establishing probable cause for extradition based on presence in the demanding state.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by North Dakota and codified in North Dakota Century Code Chapter 29-31, outlines the procedures for interstate rendition of fugitives. A critical aspect of this process is the documentation required by the demanding state to support the extradition request. Specifically, North Dakota law, mirroring the UCEA, mandates that the demanding state must provide a copy of the indictment, information, or complaint, along with a warrant for the apprehension of the person charged. Furthermore, if the person was convicted of a crime and escaped from confinement or failed to perform a duty imposed by parole or probation, the demanding state must furnish a copy of the judgment of conviction or sentence, and a statement by the executive authority of the demanding state setting forth the facts and circumstances of the escape or failure to perform the duty. The explanation of the charge must be sufficient to establish that the person is a fugitive from justice. The question probes the specific evidentiary requirements for a North Dakota governor’s warrant when the alleged fugitive has been convicted and subsequently absconded. The statute requires the demanding state to provide proof of the conviction and the circumstances of the abscondment, often through an affidavit or statement from the executive authority of the demanding state. This ensures that the demanding state has a valid legal basis for the request and that the individual is indeed a fugitive from a completed legal process.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), as adopted by North Dakota and many other states, outlines the procedures for interstate rendition of fugitives. A crucial aspect involves the governor’s role in issuing a warrant for the arrest of a person charged with a crime in another state. North Dakota law, specifically referencing the principles of the UCEA, mandates that the demanding state must present specific documentation to the North Dakota governor. This documentation typically includes a copy of the indictment, an information, or an affidavit made before a magistrate, charging the accused with a crime. Furthermore, it must include a copy of the warrant issued upon such indictment, information, or affidavit. The law also requires that the charge must substantially charge an offense under the laws of the demanding state. The governor then reviews this information to determine if the accused is substantially charged with a crime and if the person sought is indeed the one named in the documents. If these prerequisites are met, the governor issues a rendition warrant. The question hinges on the governor’s discretionary power and the specific statutory requirements for the demanding state’s submission. The absence of a sworn affidavit before a magistrate charging the offense, or a failure to provide a copy of the warrant issued upon such charge, would be grounds for the North Dakota governor to deny the extradition request. The governor does not need to verify the guilt or innocence of the accused, nor is it the governor’s role to investigate the alleged crime beyond ensuring the formal documentation is in order and the individual is substantially charged. The requirement for a copy of the warrant issued upon the indictment, information, or affidavit is a procedural safeguard.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted in North Dakota as N.D. Cent. Code Chapter 29-30.1, governs the process of extraditing individuals accused or convicted of crimes across state lines. A key provision relates to the demand for extradition. For a demand to be legally sufficient, it must be accompanied by a copy of the indictment found, or an information or affidavit made before a magistrate of the demanding state, charging the accused with the commission of a crime. This document must substantially charge the person with having committed a crime under the law of the demanding state. Furthermore, the demanding state’s application must include a copy of the judgment of conviction or sentence, if the person has been convicted. In cases where the person has escaped from confinement or broken the terms of probation or parole, the application must include a document stating the fact of escape or breach of probation/parole, and a copy of the indictment, information, affidavit, judgment of conviction, or sentence, or other judicial process, that guarantees the fact of escape or breach of probation or parole. The question specifies that the individual, Ms. Anya Sharma, is sought by Montana for a parole violation. Therefore, the North Dakota governor’s office would require documentation substantiating this parole violation. This would typically involve a sworn statement from the parole authority in Montana detailing the nature of the violation and a certified copy of the order revoking parole, or a similar judicial document confirming the breach. The mere fact that Ms. Sharma is currently residing in North Dakota does not, in itself, necessitate any specific action from North Dakota’s perspective beyond processing a valid extradition request. The focus remains on the legal sufficiency of Montana’s demand.

The scenario presented involves a fugitive, Ms. Anya Sharma, who is sought for a felony offense in Montana and has been apprehended in North Dakota. The core legal issue is the proper procedure for her extradition under the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act, as adopted by North Dakota. Specifically, the question probes the permissible duration for holding an individual in custody without a formal demand for extradition from the demanding state. North Dakota law, mirroring the Uniform Act, allows for detention for a reasonable period to await the issuance of a Governor’s warrant. However, this period is not indefinite. If the demanding state fails to initiate extradition proceedings within a specified timeframe, the arrested individual is entitled to discharge. North Dakota Century Code (NDCC) § 29-30.1-15 outlines this provision, stating that if the arrested person is not so discharged and no agent for the demanding state has appeared, the person may be committed to jail for a period not exceeding thirty days. If the person is not delivered to the agent of the demanding state within thirty days from the date of their arrest, they shall be discharged. Therefore, the maximum period Ms. Sharma can be held without a formal demand and warrant from Montana is thirty days from her arrest.

North Dakota’s Uniform Criminal Extradition Act, codified in Chapter 29-30.1 of the North Dakota Century Code, governs the process of extraditing individuals charged with or convicted of crimes in other states. A critical aspect of this act, mirroring federal law and the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act, is the requirement for a formal demand from the executive authority of the demanding state. This demand must be accompanied by specific documentation. According to NDCC § 29-30.1-03, the demand must include a copy of the indictment found, or an information supported by affidavit, or a complaint made before a magistrate, charging the accused with the commission of the crime. Crucially, this charging document must substantially charge the person with having committed a crime under the laws of the demanding state. Furthermore, the demand must be accompanied by a copy of the judgment of conviction or sentence, or for a person who has escaped from confinement, or broken the terms of probation or parole, a copy of the judgment of conviction and sentence of the court, or the order of forfeiture of bail. The demanding state must also furnish a copy of the warrant issued upon the indictment, information, or complaint. The accompanying documents must establish that the person sought is substantially charged with a crime in the demanding state and that the person is a fugitive from justice. The governor of North Dakota, upon receiving such a demand, may issue a warrant for the arrest of the person. The question tests the understanding of the specific documentary evidence required to initiate the extradition process under North Dakota law, focusing on the charging instrument and the fugitive status.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by North Dakota and most other states, outlines the procedures for interstate rendition of fugitives. A critical aspect of this act is the requirement for a formal demand from the demanding state, accompanied by specific documentation. North Dakota law, mirroring the UCEA, mandates that the governor of the demanding state must issue a written application for the fugitive’s surrender. This application must be accompanied by a copy of the indictment found, or an information supported by an affidavit, or by a judgment of conviction or a sentence, together with a statement by the executive authority of the demanding state that the person has fled from justice. The law also specifies that the documents must substantially charge the person with a crime under the laws of the demanding state. While the UCEA allows for arrest without a warrant upon reasonable information that a crime has been committed and that the offender has fled, the subsequent formal requisition process requires these specific documents to be presented to the governor of the asylum state. The governor of North Dakota, upon receiving such a demand, must review the documentation for legal sufficiency. If the documentation is found to be in order and substantially charges the individual with a crime, the governor is authorized to issue a warrant for the fugitive’s arrest and delivery to the agent of the demanding state. The absence of a sworn affidavit supporting an information, or a judgment of conviction, would render the demand procedurally deficient under the UCEA and North Dakota’s adoption of it, preventing the issuance of an extradition warrant.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by North Dakota, governs the process of interstate rendition. North Dakota law, specifically under Chapter 29-31 of the North Dakota Century Code, outlines the procedures for demanding and granting extradition. A key aspect of this process involves the governor of the demanding state issuing a formal written demand. This demand must be accompanied by a copy of the indictment found, or an information or complaint, and a warrant issued thereon. Crucially, the documents must allege that the accused committed a crime in the demanding state. Furthermore, the demanding state must present proof that the person sought is substantially charged with a crime in that state. The law also specifies that the person sought must be found within the demanding state at the time of the commission of the crime. If the accused is alleged to have committed a crime by an act done in North Dakota, or in a third state, but without the demanding state, the governor of North Dakota may still surrender the person if the demand is accompanied by proof that the accused was within the demanding state at the time of the commission of the crime and that the accused thereafter fled from the demanding state. The question asks about the necessary supporting documentation for an extradition demand from California to North Dakota. According to North Dakota’s adoption of the UCEA, the demand must include a sworn statement from the prosecuting officer of the demanding state that the accused was present in the demanding state at the time of the commission of the alleged crime. This is a critical requirement to establish jurisdiction and the basis for the extradition.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted in North Dakota, governs the process of extraditing individuals accused or convicted of crimes across state lines. A crucial aspect of this act 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, or complaint, under which the accused is charged, and a copy of the judgment of conviction or sentence, if the accused has been convicted. North Dakota law, specifically under N.D.C.C. § 29-30-04, details the necessary documentation for an extradition demand. The governor of the asylum state, in this case, North Dakota, must then issue a warrant for the arrest of the accused. This warrant must be accompanied by a copy of the documents supporting the demand. The role of the North Dakota Attorney General’s office is to review the demand for legal sufficiency before the governor acts. The question hinges on the specific documentation that must accompany the governor’s arrest warrant. According to N.D.C.C. § 29-30-10, the warrant of arrest must be accompanied by a copy of the documents on which the application for extradition was founded. This means the indictment, information, complaint, or judgment of conviction, as applicable, must be attached to the governor’s warrant.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by North Dakota, governs the process of extraditing individuals accused or convicted of crimes from one state to another. A crucial aspect of this act is the requirement for a formal demand from the demanding state, which must include specific documentation. For a fugitive from justice in North Dakota, the demanding state must present a copy of an indictment found, or an information, or a judgment of conviction or a sentence. This documentation must be accompanied by a statement by the executive authority of the demanding state that the person is a fugitive from justice. The specific requirement for North Dakota is that the demanding state must provide an affidavit, made before a magistrate, showing the facts constituting the offense charged. This affidavit serves as the basis for the arrest warrant issued by a North Dakota judge or magistrate. Without this foundational document, the extradition process cannot legally commence. Therefore, the absence of an affidavit made before a magistrate, showing the facts constituting the offense charged, would render the demand insufficient under North Dakota’s interpretation of the UCEA, preventing the issuance of a Governor’s warrant for the individual’s arrest and subsequent surrender.

The scenario involves a fugitive, Elias Thorne, charged with a felony in North Dakota who has fled to Montana. North Dakota, as the demanding state, must initiate the extradition process. This process is governed by both federal law, specifically the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA) as adopted by North Dakota (NDCC Chapter 12-30), and the U.S. Constitution’s Extradition Clause (Article IV, Section 2, Clause 2). The governor of North Dakota, upon receiving a proper application from the executive authority of Montana, will issue a warrant for Thorne’s arrest. The application must be accompanied by a copy of the indictment, information, affidavit, or judgment of conviction, and a copy of the sentence imposed, if any. Crucially, North Dakota law, consistent with the UCEA, requires that the fugitive be substantially charged with a crime in North Dakota. This means the indictment or affidavit must allege facts sufficient to constitute a crime under North Dakota law. The question asks about the specific document that initiates the governor’s warrant. Under NDCC § 12-30-06, the demanding governor must request the return of the fugitive, and the governor of the asylum state (Montana) may honor this request by issuing a warrant for the arrest of the person charged. The application from the demanding state’s executive authority is the prerequisite for the asylum state’s governor to issue such a warrant. Therefore, the “demand” from the North Dakota governor, formally presented to Montana, is the catalyst. This demand is typically a formal written request, often accompanied by supporting documentation like indictments or affidavits. The core of this demand is the assertion that Thorne is substantially charged with a crime in North Dakota, which is a fundamental requirement for extradition. The legal basis for this demand is the executive authority of North Dakota, acting through its governor, to seek the return of fugitives from justice.

The scenario involves a fugitive, Silas Croft, who is sought for a felony offense in North Dakota and has fled to Montana. The North Dakota governor’s office, upon receiving a formal demand for extradition from the demanding state’s executive authority, must determine if the individual is substantially charged with a crime and has fled from justice. North Dakota’s extradition process is governed by Chapter 29-30 of the North Dakota Century Code, which largely mirrors the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act. The key to this scenario lies in the governor’s review of the documentation presented by the demanding state. Specifically, North Dakota law, consistent with federal mandates, requires that the demanding state provide an affidavit or indictment substantially charging the fugitive with a crime. Furthermore, the documents must show that the fugitive was present in the demanding state at the time of the commission of the alleged crime and that the fugitive has fled from the justice of that state. The question of whether Silas Croft is a “fugitive from justice” is a factual determination made by the executive authority of the demanding state and is presumed correct by the asylum state’s governor. However, the governor of North Dakota retains the authority to deny extradition if the documentation is insufficient or if there is a clear showing that the person is not substantially charged with a crime or did not flee from justice. In this case, the North Dakota governor’s initial duty is to review the presented documents for compliance with the statutory requirements. The governor is not tasked with conducting a trial on the merits of the charges or determining guilt or innocence. The focus is on the formal requisites of the extradition request.

North Dakota’s extradition process, governed by statutes like NDCC Chapter 29-30, outlines the procedures for demanding and surrendering fugitives from justice. A critical aspect involves the governor’s role in issuing a warrant for the arrest of a person charged with a crime in another state. The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted in North Dakota, provides a framework for interstate rendition. When a demand for extradition is made by the executive authority of another state, the North Dakota governor must review the accompanying documents, which typically include an indictment, an information, or a sworn affidavit, along with a copy of the charging document and any judicial record of the proceedings. If the governor finds that the demand substantially complies with the UCEA and that the person sought is substantially charged with a crime, the governor shall issue a warrant. This warrant authorizes any peace officer to arrest the accused person. The accused then has the right to challenge the legality of their arrest and detention through a writ of habeas corpus. The court’s review in such a proceeding is generally limited to whether the person is the one named in the warrant, whether they are substantially charged with a crime in the demanding state, and whether the governor’s warrant is valid. The statute does not permit a review of the guilt or innocence of the accused. Therefore, if the governor determines that the demand is proper and the individual is charged with a crime in the demanding state, the issuance of the arrest warrant is the appropriate action.

The scenario involves a fugitive, Elias Thorne, who is sought for a felony offense in North Dakota and is believed to be residing in Montana. The North Dakota governor’s office initiates an extradition request to Montana. The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by both North Dakota (NDCC Chapter 12-30) and Montana (MCA Title 46, Chapter 31), governs this process. For an extradition to be valid, the demanding state (North Dakota) must present specific documentation to the asylum state (Montana). This documentation, as outlined in UCEA Section 3, includes an affidavit, or an indictment, charging the fugitive with a crime. Crucially, this charging document must be supported by proof that the person is in fact the person charged. This proof typically comes in the form of a copy of the indictment, information, or a criminal complaint, and if the charge is a felony, a copy of an indictment or an information is generally required. Additionally, a warrant issued by a magistrate of the demanding state is necessary. The UCEA also mandates that the person sought must be substantially charged with a crime in the demanding state. The question hinges on what documentation is *sufficient* for North Dakota to request extradition, specifically focusing on the charging instrument and supporting evidence of identity. An affidavit made before a magistrate, charging the fugitive with a crime, and accompanied by a copy of the indictment, serves as the foundational proof. The identity of the person is further corroborated by a warrant issued by a North Dakota magistrate. Therefore, the presence of these core documents is essential for a valid extradition request under the UCEA.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by North Dakota, governs the process of extraditing individuals accused or convicted of crimes in other states. A crucial aspect of this act involves the Governor’s role and the documentation required for a valid rendition warrant. Specifically, North Dakota law, mirroring the UCEA, mandates that the demanding state’s executive authority (typically the Governor) must furnish an application for extradition. This application must be accompanied by a copy of the indictment found or an information or accusation made before a court of competent jurisdiction in the demanding state, together with a copy of the warrant issued thereon. Alternatively, if the accused has been convicted of a crime and has escaped from confinement or has broken the terms of bail, the application must be accompanied by a copy of the judgment of conviction or sentence, together with a statement by the executive authority of the demanding state setting forth the reasons why the person sought should be delivered up. The demand must also be accompanied by a copy of the indictment, information, or affidavit upon which the arrest warrant was issued, and a copy of the warrant. The focus here is on the initial documentation presented to the North Dakota Governor. While a judge’s affidavit might be part of the supporting evidence in the demanding state, it is not the primary document that must accompany the demand from the demanding state’s executive authority to the North Dakota Governor under the UCEA framework for initiating extradition. The core requirement is the formal accusation or conviction record and the warrant.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by North Dakota, governs the process of returning fugitives from justice to the state where they are charged with a crime. Under North Dakota law, specifically referencing the principles of the UCEA as codified, a person arrested in North Dakota on a warrant issued by another state must be brought before a judge without unnecessary delay. The judge’s role is to inform the accused of the demand for their extradition and their right to a hearing. At this hearing, the accused can challenge the legality of the arrest and the extradition process. The burden of proof rests on the accused to demonstrate that they are not the person named in the warrant or that they were not in the demanding state at the time of the alleged offense. The demanding state must prove that the person is substantially charged with a crime in their jurisdiction and that the accompanying paperwork is in order. If the judge finds that the person is lawfully subject to extradition, they will be committed to custody pending the arrival of an agent from the demanding state. North Dakota law, consistent with the UCEA, does not permit the accused to raise defenses to the underlying criminal charges during the extradition hearing; that is a matter for the courts in the demanding state. Therefore, the inquiry is strictly limited to whether the person is properly charged, is the person sought, and was present in the demanding state at the time of the offense.

North Dakota’s extradition process is primarily governed by the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), as codified in North Dakota Century Code Chapter 29-31. When a person is sought for a crime committed in another state, the demanding state must present a formal application for extradition. This application typically includes a copy of the indictment, information, or complaint, accompanied by a warrant or other process issued by a judicial official in the demanding state, and a statement by the executive authority of the demanding state that the person has fled from justice. North Dakota law, specifically Section 29-31-05 NDCC, outlines the requirements for this demanding document. The demanding document must be authenticated by the executive authority of the demanding state. This authentication ensures the integrity and official nature of the request. Failure to properly authenticate the demanding document can be grounds for challenging the extradition. Therefore, the presence of a sworn affidavit from the governor of the demanding state, confirming the authenticity of the attached documents and asserting that the individual is a fugitive from justice, is a critical component of a valid extradition request under North Dakota law.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), as adopted and modified by North Dakota, outlines the procedures for interstate rendition of fugitives. A key aspect involves the governor’s warrant and the subsequent judicial review. When a person is arrested on a governor’s warrant in North Dakota, they are entitled to a hearing to challenge the legality of their detention. This hearing is not an inquiry into guilt or innocence but rather a determination of whether the person is substantially the same individual named in the demanding state’s documents and whether the documents themselves are in order and sufficient to justify extradition. The scope of this review is limited. The asylum state governor’s authority to issue the warrant is predicated on the demanding state’s governor’s certification that the accused is a fugitive from justice and that the accompanying documents are authentic and sufficient. North Dakota’s statutes, particularly those mirroring the UCEA, specify that the person sought may challenge the warrant based on fundamental procedural defects or if they are not the person named. However, the question of whether the accused committed the crime in the demanding state is for the demanding state’s courts to decide. Therefore, evidence concerning the accused’s whereabouts at the time of the alleged offense, while potentially relevant to the underlying criminal proceedings, is not a basis for challenging the extradition warrant itself in the asylum state’s court during the rendition hearing. The focus remains on the formal requirements and the identity of the accused.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by North Dakota, governs the process of returning fugitives from justice to the state where they are accused of committing a crime. A critical aspect of this process involves the governor’s warrant. When a demand for extradition is made, the demanding state must provide documentation, including an indictment or an affidavit made before a magistrate, substantially charging the person with a crime. North Dakota law, consistent with the UCEA, requires that the person sought be substantially charged with a crime. This means the accusation must be more than a mere suspicion; it must present a prima facie case, demonstrating that a crime was committed and that the accused likely committed it. The asylum state’s governor then reviews this demand. If the governor finds the documentation in order and the person is substantially charged, they issue a Governor’s Warrant for the arrest of the fugitive. This warrant is the legal authority for the arrest and detention of the individual pending their surrender to the demanding state. Without a valid Governor’s Warrant, the arrest and detention would be unlawful under North Dakota’s extradition statutes. Therefore, the issuance of the Governor’s Warrant is a mandatory prerequisite for lawful extradition proceedings in North Dakota.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), as adopted and codified in North Dakota Century Code Chapter 29-31, governs the process of interstate rendition. A crucial aspect of this act pertains to the governor’s discretionary power in deciding whether to honor an extradition request. While the act generally mandates compliance with a properly authenticated demand from the demanding state’s executive authority, North Dakota law, like many UCEA states, allows for a limited review of the demand’s legal sufficiency. Specifically, North Dakota law permits the governor to deny an extradition request if the person sought is not substantially charged with a crime under the laws of the demanding state or if the demand is otherwise legally insufficient. This discretion is not absolute; it is circumscribed by the need for a legal basis. The governor cannot simply refuse extradition based on personal whim or a desire to protect the individual from prosecution in the demanding state. Instead, the refusal must be grounded in a demonstrable legal defect in the extradition process or the underlying charge. Therefore, if a North Dakota governor receives a properly certified demand from the Governor of Montana for an individual alleged to have committed a felony in Montana, and the accompanying documentation clearly establishes that the individual is substantially charged with a crime under Montana law, and all other procedural requirements are met, the governor’s authority to refuse extradition on the grounds of the individual’s alleged innocence or the perceived injustice of the charges in Montana would be limited. The primary legal standard is whether the individual is substantially charged with a crime and the demand is procedurally sound.

The scenario involves a fugitive, Elias Thorne, who is sought by North Dakota for a felony offense and has fled to Montana. North Dakota initiates extradition proceedings. The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by both North Dakota (NDCC Chapter 12-31) and Montana, governs this process. A crucial aspect of extradition is the demand from the demanding state, which must be accompanied by specific documents. According to NDCC Section 12-31-04, the governor of the demanding state must issue a warrant for the arrest of the accused. This warrant must be accompanied by a copy of the indictment found, or an information supported by affidavit, or by a complaint made before a magistrate of the demanding state, charging the accused with having committed a crime. The documents must also include a copy of the judgment of conviction or sentence rendered in the absence of a jury, if the fugitive was convicted of a crime in the demanding state. In this case, North Dakota is seeking Elias Thorne for a felony. The demand from North Dakota’s governor must therefore include a copy of the indictment or an information supported by affidavit, or a complaint made before a magistrate in North Dakota, that charges Thorne with the felony. The demand must also include a copy of the judgment of conviction and sentence if Thorne had already been convicted and sentenced for that felony in North Dakota. The question asks what is *required* for the demand. The critical document that establishes the basis for the criminal charge in the demanding state is the indictment, information, or complaint. While a warrant is issued by the governor, the demand itself is a formal request supported by the charging documents. Therefore, a copy of the indictment, or an information supported by affidavit, or a complaint made before a magistrate charging the fugitive with the commission of the crime is a fundamental requirement for a valid extradition demand.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by North Dakota, governs the process of interstate rendition. A crucial aspect of this act concerns the grounds upon which an individual may challenge extradition. While the demanding state must demonstrate that the accused was present in the demanding state at the time of the commission of the alleged crime and is a fugitive from justice, the asylum state court’s inquiry is limited. The asylum state court cannot delve into the guilt or innocence of the accused, nor can it review the legality or constitutional sufficiency of the indictment or information in the demanding state, provided the documents appear regular on their face and charge an offense. However, the asylum state court can inquire into whether the person sought is the person named in the rendition warrant and whether that person is substantially charged with a crime in the demanding state. In this scenario, the argument regarding the lack of a sworn affidavit supporting the initial complaint in Montana, if it pertains to the fundamental charge or the basis of the fugitive status as presented to the demanding state’s executive authority, could be a valid ground for challenging extradition. North Dakota law, consistent with the UCEA, permits a review of the charging documents for facial validity and whether they meet the basic requirements for extradition. If the Montana complaint, as presented for extradition, is demonstrably deficient in a manner that undermines the executive authority’s determination that a crime was charged, or that the individual is a fugitive, it could be a basis for denial. The key is whether the deficiency impacts the fundamental legal basis for the extradition request, not a retrial of the underlying offense.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by North Dakota, governs the process of returning fugitives from justice. Specifically, North Dakota law, mirroring the UCEA, outlines the requirements for a valid rendition warrant issued by the Governor. For a person to be lawfully arrested and delivered to another state, the requisition must substantially charge the person with a crime under the laws of the demanding state. This is a fundamental constitutional and statutory requirement to ensure that the extradition process is not used for purposes other than legitimate criminal prosecution. The demanding state’s executive authority must present a formal request to the asylum state’s governor, accompanied by a copy of the indictment, information, or complaint, and an arrest warrant, all authenticated as required by North Dakota law, which aligns with federal standards. The charging document must be sufficient to establish probable cause that the accused committed the crime. The focus is on the sufficiency of the charge in the demanding state’s jurisdiction, not on whether the alleged act would constitute a crime in North Dakota. Therefore, if the requisition from California correctly alleges a violation of California law, and the supporting documents are properly authenticated, the North Dakota governor may issue a rendition warrant. The mere fact that the alleged conduct might be viewed differently or have a lesser penalty in North Dakota is irrelevant to the validity of the extradition request itself.

The scenario involves a fugitive, Elias Thorne, who is alleged to have committed a felony in North Dakota and has fled to Montana. North Dakota, as the demanding state, must present a formal application for extradition to Montana, the asylum state. This application must be accompanied by a copy of the indictment found or an information supported by affidavit, or by a complaint made before a magistrate of the demanding state, charging the fugitive with having committed a crime. Crucially, the application must also include a copy of the warrant issued by the demanding state’s judicial officer. The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by both North Dakota (NDCC Chapter 29-30.1) and Montana, governs this process. Section 29-30.1-04 of the North Dakota Century Code specifies the necessary documents for the governor’s warrant. The core requirement for the demanding state’s governor to issue a warrant of arrest is that the application must be accompanied by a copy of the indictment or information and affidavit, or a complaint made before a magistrate, charging the fugitive with the commission of a crime, and accompanied by a copy of the warrant issued in this state. The question asks about the essential accompanying documentation for North Dakota’s governor to issue a warrant for Thorne’s arrest. Therefore, the absence of a sworn complaint before a North Dakota magistrate, even if a Montana arrest warrant exists for a different matter, does not fulfill the North Dakota extradition requirement for the alleged North Dakota felony. The application must specifically address the North Dakota charge with North Dakota-issued documentation. The process requires a formal request from the North Dakota governor, based on specific documentation related to the North Dakota offense, to the governor of Montana.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by North Dakota, governs the process of extraditing individuals accused or convicted of crimes across state lines. A key provision, North Dakota Century Code (NDCC) § 29-30.1-07, specifies the requirements for an arrest warrant issued by the demanding state to be sufficient to procure the arrest of a fugitive in another state. This section mandates that the warrant must be accompanied by an affidavit made before a magistrate, charging the fugitive with a crime. The affidavit must substantially charge the fugitive with having committed a crime under the law of the demanding state. The question presents a scenario where a North Dakota court is considering an extradition request from Montana. The Montana warrant is supported by a sworn information document, which functions similarly to an affidavit in charging a crime before a magistrate. This document clearly states the alleged offense committed by the fugitive in Montana. Therefore, the warrant and the supporting information meet the statutory requirements for extradition under the UCEA as adopted in North Dakota, allowing for the fugitive’s arrest and subsequent surrender. The sufficiency hinges on the charging document being sworn and alleging a crime under the demanding state’s law.