The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by Minnesota, governs the process of extraditing individuals accused or convicted of crimes across state lines. A critical aspect of this act, and a frequent point of contention, involves the sufficiency of the demanding state’s documentation. Minnesota Statutes § 629.05 specifically addresses the required documentation for an extradition request. This statute mandates that the application for extradition 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 the crime. Furthermore, it requires a copy of the warrant issued upon such indictment, information, or affidavit. Crucially, the statute also stipulates that the indictment, information, or affidavit must substantially charge a crime under the laws of the demanding state, and that the person arrested is the person charged. When the accused is arrested on a governor’s warrant, the accused has the right to challenge the legality of the arrest through a writ of habeas corpus. In such proceedings, the court will examine the extradition documents to ensure they meet the statutory requirements. If the demanding state’s charging document is fundamentally flawed, failing to substantially charge a crime under its own laws, or if the identity of the accused is not properly established by the documentation, the court may deny extradition. Therefore, the absence of a charging document that substantially alleges a crime in the demanding state, or the failure to provide a warrant issued based on such a document, would be grounds for denying the extradition request in Minnesota.

Under Minnesota law, specifically Minnesota Statutes Chapter 629, which governs extradition, a person charged with a crime in another state who has fled from justice and is found in Minnesota can be arrested and detained. The process begins with a demand for extradition from the executive authority of the demanding state. Upon receiving such a demand, accompanied by a copy of the indictment, information, affidavit, or judgment of conviction and sentence, that clearly charges the person with a crime, the Governor of Minnesota reviews the documents. If the Governor finds that the demand is in order and that the accused is substantially charged with a crime and has fled from justice, the Governor issues a warrant for the arrest of the accused. The accused must then be taken before a judge of a court of record in Minnesota. The accused has the right to challenge the legality of their arrest and detention. This challenge is typically made through a writ of habeas corpus. During the habeas corpus proceeding, the court will determine if the person is the one named in the warrant, if they were in the demanding state at the time of the alleged commission of the crime, and if they have been substantially charged with a crime. Minnesota Statutes section 629.03 outlines the procedure for presenting the accused before a judge. The judge will inform the accused of the charge, the demand for extradition, and their right to legal counsel. The judge will also inform the accused that they have the right to a habeas corpus hearing. If the accused waives extradition, they can be surrendered to the demanding state without delay. If they do not waive extradition, the judge will set a reasonable time for the accused to apply for the writ of habeas corpus. The statute specifies that if no writ is applied for within the allotted time, or if after the hearing on the writ, the judge determines that the accused should be surrendered, the judge will commit the accused to the custody of the sheriff or other authorized officer to await the warrant of the Governor. The Governor’s warrant is the final authority for surrender. The core principle is to ensure that the person is indeed the fugitive sought and that the extradition process adheres to constitutional and statutory requirements. The question tests the understanding of the initial procedural step after the Governor’s warrant is issued and before surrender, focusing on the rights of the accused and the court’s role in verifying the process. The correct answer reflects the legal requirement for the accused to be brought before a judicial officer to be informed of the charges and their rights, including the right to challenge the extradition through habeas corpus.

Minnesota Statutes Chapter 174, which governs the extradition of persons charged with crimes, outlines the process for requesting and surrendering individuals across state lines. The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act, adopted in Minnesota, establishes the framework. When a person is sought by another state for a crime committed within that state, the demanding state must issue a formal requisition. This requisition must be accompanied by a copy of the indictment found, an information supported by deposition, or a warrant accompanied by an affidavit. The documents must substantially charge the person with a crime under the laws of the demanding state. Upon receipt of the requisition, the Governor of Minnesota reviews the documentation to ensure it meets the statutory requirements. If the documentation is in order and the person is found within Minnesota, the Governor issues a warrant for the arrest of the fugitive. The arrested individual is then entitled to a hearing before a judge or magistrate, where they can challenge the legality of their arrest and the extradition process. The burden of proof at this hearing rests on the fugitive to demonstrate that they are not the person named in the warrant or that they are not substantially charged with a crime in the demanding state. The judge’s role is not to determine guilt or innocence but to verify that the procedural requirements of extradition have been met and that the individual is indeed the fugitive sought. If the judge finds the process to be in order, the fugitive is committed to custody pending surrender to the demanding state. The demanding state typically has a specified period, usually 30 days, to take custody of the fugitive. Failure to do so may result in the fugitive’s release. Minnesota law, consistent with the Uniform Act, emphasizes due process throughout the extradition process, ensuring that individuals are not surrendered without proper legal authorization and justification. The focus remains on the identity of the accused and the validity of the charging documents from the demanding state, not on the merits of the underlying criminal charges.

The scenario presented involves an individual, Elara Vance, who is sought by the state of Wisconsin for a felony offense. Elara is apprehended in Minnesota. The core legal principle at play is the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), which Minnesota has adopted, governing the process of interstate rendition. Under the UCEA, as codified in Minnesota Statutes Chapter 629, the demanding state (Wisconsin) must formally request the return of the fugitive. This request typically involves an indictment or an affidavit made before a magistrate, substantially charging the fugitive with a crime. The Governor of the asylum state (Minnesota) then issues a warrant for the fugitive’s arrest, based upon this documentation. Crucially, the UCEA provides the arrested individual with a right to challenge the legality of their detention and the extradition process. This challenge is typically made through a writ of habeas corpus. The hearing on the writ of habeas corpus is not an opportunity to litigate the guilt or innocence of the fugitive, but rather to determine if the arrest and requested extradition conform to the legal requirements of the UCEA and the U.S. Constitution. Specifically, the Minnesota court will examine whether: 1) the person before the court is the person named in the rendition warrant; 2) the person is substantially charged with a crime in the demanding state; 3) the person is a fugitive from justice in the demanding state; and 4) the documents presented by the demanding state are in order. If these conditions are met, the court will typically order the extradition. Elara’s assertion that she was not aware of the charges in Wisconsin and that the process is being initiated without her knowledge does not, in itself, constitute a legal basis to prevent extradition. The focus is on the formal requisites of the demand and the fugitive status, not the fugitive’s personal awareness of the proceedings prior to arrest. Therefore, if Wisconsin’s request is properly documented and Elara is indeed the person sought and a fugitive from justice, her detention for extradition will be upheld.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by Minnesota, governs the process of extraditing individuals accused or convicted of crimes across state lines. Under the UCEA, a governor’s warrant is the essential document that initiates the formal extradition process. This warrant must be supported by a complaint, information, indictment, or other formal accusation, along with a copy of the charging document and any supporting affidavits or statements. The demanding state must demonstrate that the person sought was present in that state at the time of the commission of the alleged crime. Minnesota law, specifically Minnesota Statutes Chapter 629, codifies the UCEA. The process involves the executive authority of the demanding state making a formal request to the governor of Minnesota. The governor of Minnesota then reviews the request and, if satisfied that the requirements of the UCEA are met, issues a warrant for the arrest of the fugitive. The arrested individual has the right to challenge the legality of their detention through a writ of habeas corpus. However, the scope of a habeas corpus hearing in extradition proceedings is limited to determining whether the person is substantially charged with a crime in the demanding state, whether the person is the one named in the extradition warrant, and whether the person is a fugitive from justice. It does not delve into the merits of the underlying criminal charges. Therefore, if the demanding state of Wisconsin has properly charged Elias Thorne with a felony offense and provided documentation that he was present in Wisconsin when the alleged offense occurred, Minnesota’s governor is generally obligated to issue the warrant. The fact that Thorne might have a valid defense to the charges in Wisconsin or that the evidence might be weak is not a basis for the Minnesota governor to deny extradition.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by Minnesota, governs the process of extraditing individuals accused or convicted of crimes across state lines. A crucial aspect of this act pertains to the demand for extradition, specifically the documentation required from the demanding state. Minnesota Statutes § 629.04 outlines the essential components of an extradition demand. This statute specifies that the demand must be accompanied by a copy of the indictment found, or an information and affidavit made before a magistrate charging the accused with the commission of the crime. Alternatively, it can be supported by a warrant issued by a magistrate of the demanding state, accompanied by a copy of the indictment or information and affidavit. The demand must also include a statement that the accused was present in the demanding state at the time of the commission of the alleged crime. Furthermore, it must be accompanied by 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 core principle is that the demanding state must provide sufficient documentation to establish probable cause that the accused committed the crime and is a fugitive from justice. The scenario describes a demand from Iowa that lacks a sworn affidavit detailing the facts constituting the alleged crime, which is a mandatory component for a valid extradition demand under Minnesota law as per the UCEA. Without this sworn statement, the demand is legally insufficient to compel the Governor of Minnesota to issue a warrant for arrest.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by Minnesota, governs the process of extraditing individuals accused or convicted of crimes from one state to another. A critical aspect of this process involves the governor’s warrant. In Minnesota, when a request for extradition is received from another state, the governor must issue a warrant for the arrest of the fugitive. This warrant serves as the legal authorization for law enforcement to take the individual into custody for the purpose of rendition. The UCEA specifies the requirements for this warrant, which generally include that it must be under the seal of the governor, state the name of the person whose rendition is demanded, the state from which the person fled, the crime with which the person is charged, and that the person is a fugitive from justice. The warrant is then delivered to the law enforcement officer who will execute it. The arrested individual has the right to challenge the legality of their detention through a writ of habeas corpus, but the scope of review in such proceedings is limited, typically focusing on whether the person is indeed the one named in the warrant, is substantially charged with a crime in the demanding state, and has fled from justice. The governor’s warrant is the foundational document that initiates the formal process of interstate rendition under the UCEA framework in Minnesota.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by Minnesota, governs the process of extraditing individuals accused or convicted of crimes across state lines. A critical aspect of this act involves the documentation required for an extradition demand. For an individual charged by indictment or information, the demanding state must provide a copy of the indictment or information, authenticated by the executive authority of the demanding state. Minnesota Statutes § 629.07 specifies that the indictment or information must be accompanied by a sworn statement from the executive authority. If the individual is charged by complaint, the demanding state must present a copy of the complaint, supported by an affidavit made before a magistrate in the demanding state, and a copy of the warrant issued thereon. The executive authority’s authentication is crucial for all documents. In this scenario, the demanding state of Wisconsin has provided a criminal complaint and a warrant, but these documents are not accompanied by an affidavit made before a magistrate, nor are they authenticated by the Wisconsin executive authority. Therefore, the Minnesota governor’s warrant for arrest would be invalid because the underlying demand lacks the statutorily required sworn statement and authentication.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by Minnesota, outlines the procedural requirements for interstate rendition. A crucial aspect of this act concerns the governor’s role and the documentation necessary for a valid rendition warrant. When a demanding state seeks the return of an individual from Minnesota, the governor of Minnesota must issue a rendition warrant. This warrant must be based upon a formal application from the executive authority of the demanding state. The application must be accompanied by a copy of the indictment found or by an information supported by an affidavit, or by a complaint made before a magistrate, showing that the accused has committed a crime in the demanding state. Furthermore, the application must include a copy of the judgment of conviction or sentence, or a judgment of forfeiture, if the accused was convicted, has escaped, or forfeited their bail. Minnesota Statutes, section 629.03, specifically details the requirements for the demanding state’s application, emphasizing that it must be attested by the executive authority of the demanding state and accompanied by the requisite legal documentation proving the alleged offense and the status of the accused. Without these foundational documents, the governor of Minnesota lacks the legal basis to issue a valid rendition warrant, and the individual cannot be lawfully extradited. The scenario presented involves a demand from Iowa, but the supporting documentation lacks a sworn affidavit to support the complaint. This omission renders the application defective under Minnesota’s interpretation of the UCEA, preventing the issuance of a lawful rendition warrant.

Minnesota Statutes Chapter 629 governs extradition. Specifically, Section 629.03 outlines the requirements for a valid rendition warrant. For an individual to be extradited from Minnesota to another state, the demanding state must provide an indictment, an information supported by a deposition, or a complaint made before a magistrate, accompanied by an affidavit showing the facts constituting the offense charged. This documentation must also show that the accused was present in the demanding state at the time of the commission of the alleged crime, and that the accused is now a fugitive from justice. The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act, adopted in Minnesota, emphasizes these procedural safeguards. A request that lacks the requisite supporting documentation or fails to establish the fugitive status of the accused is insufficient to compel extradition. Therefore, if the demanding state’s request to Minnesota only includes a warrant from a justice of the peace in the demanding state, without the accompanying indictment, information, or a complaint supported by a deposition or affidavit detailing the facts and presence, it does not meet the statutory requirements for a valid rendition warrant under Minnesota law. The governor of Minnesota must be satisfied that the documents presented are substantially charged with a crime and that the accused is a fugitive.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by Minnesota and many other states, governs the process of interstate extradition. A key provision of the UCEA, as codified in Minnesota Statutes Chapter 629, outlines the procedural requirements for an accused person to be arrested and detained in the asylum state pending the arrival of the demanding state’s agent. Specifically, Minnesota Statutes Section 629.07 addresses the situation where a person arrested on a fugitive warrant is brought before a judge. This statute requires that the arrested individual be informed of the complaint against them, their right to counsel, and their right to a writ of habeas corpus. Crucially, if the person is not arrested on a warrant issued by the executive authority of the demanding state, but rather on a complaint made to a judge in the asylum state charging them with a crime committed in another state, the judge must commit the accused to jail. This commitment is for a period not exceeding thirty days, during which time the demanding state is expected to produce a warrant for the person’s arrest, issued by an executive authority of the demanding state, and to make other necessary arrangements for their return. The statute emphasizes that this commitment is to facilitate the formal extradition process by allowing time for the demanding state to procure the necessary executive warrant. Therefore, the judge’s action is a preliminary step to hold the individual while the demanding state prepares the formal extradition documents, specifically the executive warrant.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), as adopted by Minnesota (Minn. Stat. § 629.01 et seq.), outlines the process for extraditing individuals accused or convicted of crimes across state lines. A key procedural safeguard for the accused is the right to challenge the legality of their detention and the extradition request. This challenge is typically brought through a writ of habeas corpus. The UCEA and associated case law establish that the scope of inquiry during a habeas corpus proceeding in the asylum state is limited. The asylum state’s court is not to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused, nor to adjudicate the merits of the charges in the demanding state. Instead, the inquiry is generally confined to whether: (1) a valid indictment or information exists; (2) the person named in the indictment or information is the person sought to be extradited; (3) the person sought is substantially charged with a crime in the demanding state; and (4) the person sought is a fugitive from justice from the demanding state. The question specifically asks about the limitations of a habeas corpus review in Minnesota when the demanding state is Wisconsin. Therefore, the correct answer focuses on the permissible scope of inquiry, which excludes examining the evidence of guilt.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by Minnesota, governs the process of extraditing individuals accused or convicted of crimes from one state to another. A crucial aspect of this act pertains to the governor’s role in reviewing extradition requests. Specifically, Minnesota Statutes § 629.04 outlines the requirements for a valid rendition warrant issued by the governor. The governor must be satisfied that the person named in the warrant is substantially charged with a crime in the demanding state, based on an indictment or an affidavit made before a magistrate. Furthermore, the demanding state’s executive authority must certify the accompanying documents. When a person is arrested in Minnesota on an extradition warrant, they have the right to challenge the legality of their detention through a writ of habeas corpus. The scope of review in such a proceeding is generally limited to whether the governor had jurisdiction to issue the warrant, whether the person is the one named in the warrant, and whether the person is substantially charged with a crime in the demanding state. The question of guilt or innocence is not to be determined in the habeas corpus hearing; that is reserved for the courts in the demanding jurisdiction. Therefore, if the governor’s warrant is issued based on a properly certified indictment from California, and the person arrested in Minnesota is indeed the individual named in the warrant, the warrant is valid for extradition purposes, and the detention is lawful, regardless of any potential defenses to the underlying charge.

The scenario describes a situation where an individual, Mr. Alistair Finch, is sought for a felony offense in North Dakota and has been apprehended in Minnesota. The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), as adopted by Minnesota Statutes Chapter 629, governs the process for interstate rendition. Under Minnesota law, specifically Minn. Stat. § 629.03, any person arrested in Minnesota on a charge of committing a crime in another state must be taken before a judge. The judge then informs the arrested person of the accusation and their right to demand a legal investigation. If the arrested person waives the right to a hearing or if after a hearing the judge is satisfied that the person is a fugitive from justice, the judge must commit the person to jail for a period not exceeding thirty days, pending the arrival of a person authorized to receive them, or until released on bail. The critical element here is the requirement for the judge to determine if the individual is a “fugitive from justice.” This determination is based on whether the person was within the demanding state when the crime was committed and is now sought to answer for that crime. The UCEA does not require the demanding state to prove guilt at this initial stage, only that a crime was committed in their jurisdiction and that the accused was present there. Therefore, the judge’s role is to ensure the procedural requirements are met and that there is probable cause to believe the person is the one named in the warrant and is a fugitive. The absence of a formal demand from the demanding state at the time of arrest does not preclude commitment, as the warrant from the demanding state itself serves as the basis for the initial apprehension and subsequent proceedings. The judge’s commitment order is a procedural step to facilitate the extradition process, not a final determination of guilt or innocence.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by Minnesota and many other states, governs the process of interstate rendition. A critical aspect of this act is the requirement for a formal demand from the executive authority of the demanding state, accompanied by specific documentation. Minnesota Statutes § 629.01 outlines these requirements. The demanding state must present a copy of the indictment found, or an information supported by a sworn affidavit, or a complaint made before a magistrate, charging the accused with a crime. This documentation must be accompanied by a copy of the judgment of conviction or sentence, if the person has been convicted and has escaped or fled from justice after conviction. For fugitives charged with a crime but not yet convicted, the demand must include a copy of an indictment or an information, or a warrant issued upon an indictment, information, or complaint, accompanied by an affidavit made before a magistrate, stating that the accused has committed a crime. The process emphasizes the need for substantial evidence of the alleged offense to justify extradition. The governor of the asylum state, in this case Minnesota, reviews the documentation to ensure it conforms to the UCEA and that the person is indeed the one sought for a crime in the demanding state. If the documentation is insufficient or does not meet the statutory requirements, the governor may refuse to issue the warrant of arrest. The scenario presented lacks the necessary documentation for a valid extradition demand under Minnesota law. Specifically, there is no mention of an indictment, information, sworn affidavit, or judgment of conviction accompanying the request from Wisconsin.

Minnesota Statutes Chapter 629 governs extradition. The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act, adopted by Minnesota, outlines the process for returning fugitives from justice to other states. A crucial aspect of this act, and thus Minnesota law, is the requirement for a formal 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 governor of Minnesota, upon receiving such a demand, must review it to ensure it substantially charges the person with a crime and that the person sought is indeed the one charged. If the demand meets these requirements, the governor will issue 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, as provided by Minnesota law. This habeas corpus proceeding allows the court to review whether the person is lawfully detained, focusing on whether the person is the one named in the extradition warrant, whether they are substantially charged with a crime in the demanding state, and whether the extradition documents are in order. The court’s inquiry in a habeas corpus proceeding related to extradition is deliberately limited; it does not delve into the guilt or innocence of the accused. Minnesota law, consistent with the Uniform Act, emphasizes the procedural regularity of the extradition process and the fundamental right to due process. The process is designed to balance the demanding state’s interest in apprehending fugitives with the accused’s right to be protected from unlawful detention. The governor’s decision to issue the warrant is a discretionary act, but it is based on the presented documentation and the legal requirements of extradition.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by Minnesota as codified in Minnesota Statutes Chapter 629, outlines the procedures for interstate rendition of fugitives. A crucial aspect of this process is the requirement for a formal demand from the executive authority of the demanding state. Minnesota Statutes Section 629.02 specifies that the demand must be accompanied by a copy of the indictment found or information laid, or by a complaint made before a magistrate, authenticated by the executive authority of the demanding state. The statute also requires that the indictment, information, or complaint must substantially charge the person with a crime under the laws of the demanding state. Furthermore, the person sought must be substantially charged with a crime. The UCEA, and by extension Minnesota law, does not permit extradition for minor infractions or civil matters that do not involve criminal conduct. The process is designed for fugitives accused of or convicted of crimes. Therefore, if the alleged offense is a civil debt or a minor regulatory violation not classified as a crime in the demanding state, extradition would not be permissible under Minnesota’s rendition statutes.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted in Minnesota as Minn. Stat. § 629.01 to § 629.29, governs the process of extraditing individuals accused or convicted of crimes across state lines. A key aspect of this act is the requirement for a formal demand from the executive authority of the demanding state, accompanied by specific documentation. This documentation must include a copy of the indictment found, an information supported by a deposition, or a complaint made before a magistrate, along with an arrest warrant issued upon such indictment, information, or complaint. Crucially, the UCEA mandates that the person sought must be charged with a crime committed in the demanding state. Minnesota law, specifically Minn. Stat. § 629.06, outlines the procedures for arrest and commitment of a person so charged. If the person arrested is brought before a judge and it appears that they have been charged with a crime in another state, and that a warrant has been issued for their arrest, the judge must commit them to jail for a period not exceeding thirty days, allowing time for the production of the proper form of extradition papers. The question probes the core requirement for initiating extradition proceedings under Minnesota’s adoption of the UCEA, focusing on the nature of the charge and the issuing authority in the demanding state. The correct answer hinges on the necessity of a formal accusation of a crime originating from the demanding jurisdiction.

Minnesota Statutes Chapter 629 governs interstate extradition. A crucial aspect is the requirement for a formal demand from the executive authority of the demanding state, accompanied by a copy of the indictment found or an information supported by an affidavit. The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act, adopted by Minnesota, outlines these procedures. The governor of Minnesota, upon receiving such a demand, must review it to ensure it substantially charges the person with a crime and that the person sought is a fugitive from justice. If these conditions are met, the governor issues a warrant for the arrest of the person. The arrested individual has the right to challenge the legality of their detention through habeas corpus proceedings. In such a proceeding, the scope of inquiry is generally limited to whether the person is substantially charged with a crime in the demanding state, whether they are a fugitive from justice, and whether the extradition documents are in order. The governor’s decision to honor an extradition request is discretionary, but it is guided by the statutory requirements and the principles of comity between states. The process ensures that individuals are not subject to arbitrary detention and that the constitutional rights of the accused are respected throughout the interstate rendition process. The governor’s warrant is the operative document authorizing the surrender of the individual.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by Minnesota as codified in Minnesota Statutes Chapter 629, governs the process of extraditing individuals accused or convicted of crimes across state lines. A key provision concerns the detainment of a person sought for extradition when the arrest is made without a warrant, based on a complaint filed in the demanding state. Minnesota Statutes Section 629.08 specifically addresses this scenario. It mandates that if a person is arrested on a fugitive warrant issued by a Minnesota court based on a charge from another state, and that person is not brought before a judge without unnecessary delay, the arresting officer must, within a reasonable time, take the arrested person before a judge of a court of record in Minnesota. The judge must then inform the arrested person of the charge, the demanding state, and their right to have counsel. Crucially, the judge must also commit the person to jail for a period not exceeding thirty days, unless the person is bailed out, pending the arrival of a warrant from the demanding state. This commitment period is designed to allow for the formal extradition paperwork to be processed. If the person is not discharged, they must be committed for a period not exceeding thirty days. The explanation focuses on the initial judicial review and commitment process following a warrantless arrest for extradition, emphasizing the judge’s role and the statutory timeframe for detention pending the formal warrant.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), as adopted by Minnesota, governs the process of interstate rendition of fugitives. A crucial aspect is the demand from the asylum state. For a valid demand under Minnesota law, it must include a sworn accusation that the accused has committed a crime in the demanding state. This accusation can take several forms, including an indictment, an information, or a warrant supported by an affidavit. The key is that the accusation must be properly sworn to, meaning it is made under oath or affirmation, attesting to the truthfulness of its contents. Minnesota Statutes § 629.02 outlines these requirements. Specifically, it states that the demanding governor must produce a copy of a judgment of conviction or a sentence imposed in execution thereof, together with a statement by the executive authority of the demanding State that the person has fled from justice. Alternatively, and more relevant to the initial stages of apprehension, the governor may demand a person charged with crime by indictment or by an information accompanied by a sworn affidavit. The question focuses on the charging instrument and the requirement of it being sworn. Therefore, an information filed by a prosecutor in the demanding state, if accompanied by a sworn affidavit detailing the alleged criminal conduct, meets the foundational requirement for a valid extradition demand. The other options are either insufficient on their own or misrepresent the statutory requirements. A simple complaint, without being sworn to by an affiant, or a warrant issued without a supporting sworn affidavit, would not satisfy the UCEA’s demand requirements as implemented in Minnesota. A conviction in absentia, while a judgment, is typically a result of proceedings that would have already established a valid charge, and the demand would be based on that underlying charge or the judgment itself, which implicitly requires a proper initial accusation. The core principle is the sworn nature of the accusation establishing probable cause.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by Minnesota as codified in Minnesota Statutes Chapter 629, 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 rendition warrant. When a demand for extradition is made, the asylum state’s governor must issue a warrant for the apprehension of the fugitive. This warrant must substantially charge the person with a crime under the laws of the demanding state. Minnesota Statutes Section 629.03 specifically addresses the requirements for the rendition warrant. It mandates that the warrant must be accompanied by a copy of the indictment, information, or complaint, and any warrant of arrest that was issued, all of which must be authenticated by the executive authority of the demanding state. The question asks about the specific requirement for the rendition warrant issued by the Minnesota governor when a person is sought for a crime committed in Wisconsin. According to Minnesota Statutes Section 629.03, the warrant must substantially charge the person with a crime under the laws of the demanding state and be accompanied by authenticated copies of the charging documents. Therefore, the rendition warrant must be accompanied by the authenticated charging instrument from Wisconsin.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted in Minnesota as codified in Minnesota Statutes Chapter 629, governs the process of extraditing individuals accused or convicted of crimes across state lines. A critical aspect of this process involves the governor’s warrant, which is the formal document authorizing the arrest and transfer of an accused individual. For an extradition to be valid, the demanding state must present evidence that the individual sought is substantially charged with a crime in that state. This evidence typically takes the form of an indictment, an information supported by a complaint, or a warrant of arrest. Minnesota law, consistent with the UCEA, requires that the governor of Minnesota, upon receiving a proper requisition from the executive authority of a demanding state, must issue a warrant for the arrest of the person so charged. The requisition must be accompanied by a copy of the charging document (indictment, information, or warrant) and a statement by the executive authority of the demanding state that the person has fled from justice. The person arrested has the right to demand and procure legal counsel and to have a writ of habeas corpus. However, the scope of the habeas corpus hearing is limited; it primarily concerns whether the person is the person named in the warrant, whether the person is substantially charged with a crime in the demanding state, and whether the warrant is in proper form. A challenge based on the alleged insufficiency of the evidence presented to the demanding state’s magistrate prior to the issuance of the arrest warrant in the demanding state is generally not a valid ground for habeas corpus relief in the asylum state under the UCEA, as the asylum state’s governor’s inquiry is limited. The focus is on the facial validity of the documents and the substantial charge, not the merits of the underlying criminal case or procedural correctness in the demanding state’s initial proceedings.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by Minnesota as codified in Minnesota Statutes Chapter 629, governs the process of 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. Minnesota Statutes Section 629.03 outlines the necessary supporting documents for an extradition demand. These include a copy of the indictment, an information, or a complaint, sworn to before a magistrate, charging the accused with the commission of a crime in the demanding state. Additionally, the demand must be accompanied by a copy of the warrant issued upon the indictment, information, or complaint, and a copy of the judgment of conviction or sentence, or the order of probation, if the fugitive has been convicted and has escaped or violated probation. The key here is that the demand must be *accompanied* by these documents. If the demand is presented to the Minnesota Governor, and it is deficient in any of these statutory requirements, the Governor is not obligated to issue a rendition warrant. Specifically, if the demanding state’s paperwork fails to include a sworn complaint or indictment charging a crime within the demanding state’s jurisdiction, or if it lacks a warrant issued pursuant to such charge, the demand is legally insufficient under Minnesota’s implementation of the UCEA. The question posits a scenario where the demanding state’s documentation is incomplete, specifically missing the sworn complaint or indictment. This omission directly contravenes Minnesota Statutes Section 629.03, rendering the demand invalid for extradition purposes from Minnesota. Therefore, the Governor of Minnesota would be within legal bounds to refuse the extradition request due to this fundamental deficiency in the submitted documentation.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by Minnesota, outlines the procedures for interstate rendition of fugitives. A key provision concerns the demand for extradition. For a demand to be legally sufficient, it must be accompanied by a copy of the indictment found or by an information supported by affidavit, or by a complaint made before a magistrate of the demanding state, charging the accused with the commission of a crime. This charging document must substantially charge the person with having committed a crime under the law of the demanding state. Furthermore, the demand must include a copy of the judgment of conviction or sentence, or a judgment of forfeiture of the bail, if the fugitive has been convicted and has escaped or violated probation or parole. The statute also requires that the charging document be authenticated by the executive authority of the demanding state. In this scenario, the governor of Wisconsin has forwarded a demand for the return of Ms. Anya Sharma, who is alleged to have committed a felony in Wisconsin. The accompanying documents include a criminal complaint sworn to before a Wisconsin municipal judge, and a certified copy of a Wisconsin state statute that defines the alleged felony. However, the demand does not include a judgment of conviction or sentence, nor does it indicate that Ms. Sharma has escaped from confinement or violated parole. Since the alleged offense is a felony, and the demand is based on a criminal complaint, the absence of a conviction or sentence document is not inherently fatal if the complaint sufficiently charges the crime. The crucial element is the substantial charging of a crime under Wisconsin law, which is supported by the included statute. Therefore, the demand is facially sufficient under Minnesota’s adoption of the UCEA, as it contains a charging document supported by affidavit (the complaint sworn before a judge) and a copy of the relevant state law, and does not require a conviction document for an individual who has not yet been convicted and sentenced.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by Minnesota, outlines the procedural framework for interstate rendition of fugitives. A critical aspect involves the governor’s role in issuing a warrant for arrest based on 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 and warrant, duly authenticated by the executive and judicial authorities of the demanding state, demonstrating that the accused was present in the demanding state at the time of the commission of the crime and has since fled. Minnesota Statutes § 629.02 addresses the requirements for the demanding state’s executive authority to issue a warrant for the arrest of a person charged with a crime in that state who has fled. The statute specifies that the demand must be accompanied by a copy of the indictment, information, or complaint, together with a warrant. Crucially, it must also include an affidavit or sworn statement that clearly establishes the presence of the accused in the demanding state at the time of the commission of the alleged offense. This affidavit serves as evidence of the fugitive’s presence in the demanding state, a foundational requirement for extradition. Without this sworn statement, the demand is insufficient to support the issuance of an extradition warrant by the Minnesota governor.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by Minnesota as Minn. Stat. §§ 629.01-629.29, governs interstate rendition. A critical aspect of this act concerns the presumption of regularity in the demanding state’s proceedings. When a person is arrested in Minnesota on a fugitive warrant issued by another state, Minnesota courts do not typically inquire into the guilt or innocence of the accused or the technical sufficiency of the demanding state’s indictment or information, provided the documents appear regular on their face and substantially charge an offense under the laws of the demanding state. The focus is on whether the demanding state has complied with the procedural requirements for requesting extradition, as outlined in the UCEA and federal law (18 U.S.C. § 3182). Minnesota courts are primarily concerned with verifying the identity of the accused, confirming they are the person named in the rendition warrant, and ensuring the demanding state has properly certified the supporting documents. Issues regarding the merits of the case or potential defenses are reserved for the courts of the demanding state. Therefore, the existence of a valid rendition warrant, properly issued and accompanied by certified copies of the charging documents and an affidavit from the executive authority of the demanding state, creates a strong presumption that the demanding state’s request is lawful and that the accused is subject to extradition. The burden shifts to the accused to demonstrate a fundamental defect in the extradition process, such as lack of probable cause for the arrest (which can be challenged in a habeas corpus proceeding in Minnesota), or that they are not the person named in the warrant. However, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the charges in the demanding state is not a proper ground for resisting extradition in Minnesota.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by Minnesota, governs the process of extraditing individuals accused or convicted of crimes across state lines. A critical aspect of this act concerns the procedural safeguards afforded to the accused during the extradition process. When a person is arrested in Minnesota on a warrant issued by another state, the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act, specifically Minnesota Statutes Chapter 629, outlines the requirements for holding the individual. The law mandates that the accused be brought before a judge without unnecessary delay. This judge then informs the accused of the demand for their extradition, the crime with which they are charged, and their right to demand proper extradition proceedings. Crucially, the accused has the right to test the legality of their arrest and detention. This is typically done through a writ of habeas corpus. The judge must inform the accused of their right to apply for a writ of habeas corpus. If the accused does not demand the writ, the judge may proceed with the extradition process. However, if the accused does demand the writ, the judge must hold a hearing to determine if the person is the one named in the extradition warrant and if the person is substantially charged with a crime in the demanding state. The explanation of these rights, particularly the right to habeas corpus, is a fundamental due process requirement under the UCEA to ensure that the extradition is lawful and that the individual is not being subjected to arbitrary detention.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by Minnesota, 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 proper rendition warrant. For an individual to be extradited from Minnesota to another demanding state, the Governor of Minnesota must issue a rendition warrant. This warrant is predicated upon the demanding state’s executive authority (typically the Governor) filing a formal application with the Minnesota Governor. This application must be accompanied by specific documentation, including a copy of the indictment, an information, or a complaint, and a judgment of conviction or a sentence. Crucially, these documents must be accompanied by a statement by the executive authority of the demanding state that the person sought has fled from justice. If the person was not present in the demanding state at the time of the commission of the crime, but was found in Minnesota, the application must also include a sworn statement of facts showing their presence in Minnesota and the commission of the crime from afar. Minnesota Statutes § 629.01 to § 629.29 codify these provisions. In the scenario presented, the Governor of North Dakota has requested the extradition of Mr. Silas Croft. The application from North Dakota includes a sworn indictment and a statement that Mr. Croft fled from justice. However, it does not include a sworn statement detailing Mr. Croft’s presence in Minnesota at the time of the alleged offense, nor does it include a judgment of conviction or sentence, as Mr. Croft has not yet been tried. Therefore, the application is deficient for purposes of extradition under the UCEA as adopted in Minnesota. The Minnesota Governor cannot issue a rendition warrant based on an incomplete or insufficient application.

Minnesota Statutes Chapter 629 governs extradition. Specifically, Section 629.03 outlines the process for demanding an accused person from another state. The governor of Minnesota may, upon demand of the executive authority of any other state, issue a warrant for the apprehension of a person charged in that state with treason, felony, or other crime, who has fled from justice and is found in Minnesota. The demanding state must present an affidavit or indictment, accompanied by a copy of the charge, showing that the person has committed a crime in the demanding state and has fled from its justice. The statute requires that the person be substantially charged with a crime. If the accused is found in Minnesota and the documentation from the demanding state is in order, the governor of Minnesota issues a warrant for the arrest of the fugitive. The fugitive is then brought before a judge or magistrate in Minnesota for a hearing. At this hearing, the fugitive can challenge the legality of the arrest and the sufficiency of the demanding documents. The judge will determine if the person is the one named in the warrant, if they have been substantially charged with a crime in the demanding state, and if they have fled from the justice of that state. If these conditions are met, the judge will commit the fugitive to jail for a reasonable time to allow for the issuance of a warrant by the executive authority of the demanding state. The question tests the understanding of the initial procedural step required by Minnesota law when a person is sought for extradition from another state, focusing on the governor’s role and the necessary documentation. The governor’s warrant is the executive act that initiates the formal process of arrest and detention for extradition, contingent upon proper documentation from the demanding state.