Oregon’s extradition process is primarily governed by the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act, codified in ORS Chapter 133. When a person is sought for a crime allegedly committed in another state, the process begins with a demand from the executive authority of the demanding state, accompanied by a copy of the indictment, information, affidavit, or judgment of conviction and sentence, charging the accused with a crime. This demand must be accompanied by a copy of the charging document and the warrant issued in the demanding state, authenticated by the executive authority of that state. Upon receipt of the demand, the Oregon governor may issue a warrant for the arrest of the person. The arrested individual then has the right to challenge their extradition. This challenge is typically made through a writ of habeas corpus. The grounds for challenging extradition are limited. According to ORS 133.239, the asylum state’s court may only inquire into whether the person arrested is the person named in the extradition warrant, whether the person has been charged with a crime in the demanding state, and whether the person is a fugitive from justice. The court cannot delve into the guilt or innocence of the accused, nor can it review the merits of the case in the demanding state. Therefore, the scope of review in an Oregon habeas corpus proceeding concerning extradition is narrow, focusing on the procedural regularity and the factual basis for the fugitive status, not the underlying criminal allegations. The question tests the understanding of the permissible scope of inquiry for an Oregon court when reviewing an extradition demand.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), as adopted and modified by Oregon, governs the process of extraditing individuals accused or convicted of crimes from one state to another. Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) Chapter 147 details these provisions. A crucial aspect is the governor’s role in issuing a rendition warrant. This warrant is the formal authorization for law enforcement to take custody of the fugitive. The process requires 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 as required by ORS 147.030. The fugitive must be charged with a crime that is a felony under the laws of the demanding state or that constitutes a misdemeanor in Oregon if the offense was committed in Oregon. However, the UCEA also addresses situations where the fugitive is found in Oregon but is not physically present in the demanding state at the time of the commission of the crime. This is known as “constructive presence” or “non-resident fugitive” status, and it is specifically addressed by ORS 147.245. This section permits extradition even if the accused was not in the demanding state when the crime was committed, provided they were a resident of the demanding state and committed an act in Oregon or another state intentionally resulting in a crime in the demanding state. Therefore, the presence of the fugitive in Oregon, coupled with the commission of an act outside of Oregon that resulted in a crime in the demanding state, and the fugitive’s residency in the demanding state at the time of the offense, are sufficient grounds for extradition under Oregon law, even if the fugitive was not physically present in the demanding state when the crime occurred. The question hinges on the specific statutory provision that allows for extradition in such circumstances.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by Oregon under ORS 133.743, outlines the procedures for extraditing individuals accused of crimes in other states. A key aspect is the governor’s role in issuing a rendition warrant. ORS 133.753 specifies that a person arrested on a fugitive warrant shall be informed of the reason for the arrest and has the right to demand that the legality of their detention be tested in court. This is typically done through a writ of habeas corpus. The governor of the demanding state must formally request the return of the fugitive, and this request must be accompanied by a copy of the indictment, information, affidavit, or judgment of conviction, authenticated by the executive authority of the demanding state. ORS 133.757 details the requirements for the rendition warrant issued by the Oregon governor, which must substantially recite the facts set forth in the application for extradition. The question focuses on the initial stage of the process after arrest, specifically concerning the documents that must accompany the governor’s formal demand for extradition. The UCEA, and by extension Oregon law, requires specific authenticated documentation from the demanding state to support the governor’s warrant. This documentation serves as the legal basis for the governor’s decision to issue the rendition warrant and for the subsequent detention and transfer of the accused. Without these authenticated documents, the extradition process cannot legally proceed.

Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) Chapter 133 governs the process of extradition. Specifically, ORS 133.743 outlines the requirement for a governor’s warrant for the arrest of a person sought for a crime in another state. The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act, adopted in Oregon, mandates that the person arrested must be brought before a judge without unnecessary delay. At this initial appearance, the accused is informed of the charges and their right to counsel. The statute does not permit the immediate surrender of the individual based solely on the existence of a warrant from the demanding state. Instead, the arrested individual has the right to challenge the legality of the arrest and the extradition process. This challenge typically occurs through a writ of habeas corpus, as provided by ORS 133.753. The habeas corpus hearing allows the court to review the validity of the demanding state’s documents, the identity of the accused, and whether the person is substantially charged with a crime in the demanding state. Only after these procedural safeguards are met and the court finds no legal impediment can the individual be surrendered to the authorities of the demanding state. Therefore, the initial appearance before a judge is a critical procedural step before any surrender can occur.

The scenario involves the extradition of an individual from Oregon to California. Oregon’s extradition process is governed by the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act, as codified in Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) Chapter 151. Specifically, ORS 151.520 outlines the requirements for a valid rendition warrant. For an extradition to be lawful, the demanding state must provide a copy of the indictment found or an information supported by an affidavit, or a judgment of conviction or a sentence. This documentation must demonstrate that the accused was present in the demanding state at the time of the commission of the alleged crime. Furthermore, the warrant must be accompanied by proof that the person is a fugitive from justice. In this case, California has provided a warrant and an affidavit alleging that Silas committed the crime of vehicular manslaughter while present in California. The affidavit, as described, supports the assertion that Silas was in California when the alleged offense occurred, satisfying the presence requirement. The affidavit also implies Silas is a fugitive by stating he has fled California. The core of the legal challenge would be whether the affidavit sufficiently establishes Silas’s presence in California at the time of the offense and his status as a fugitive, as required by ORS 151.520. The question focuses on the legal sufficiency of the documentation presented by the demanding state.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by Oregon, outlines the procedures for interstate rendition of fugitives. A critical aspect of this process involves the documentation required by the demanding state to initiate extradition. ORS 133.743 specifies that the demand must be accompanied by a copy of the indictment found in the demanding state, or by an information supported by affidavit, or by a warrant of arrest with accompanying papers. The question posits a scenario where the demanding state, California, seeks extradition of an individual from Oregon for a felony. California provides a sworn affidavit detailing the alleged offense and a warrant of arrest issued by a California magistrate, but omits a formal indictment. Under ORS 133.743, an information supported by affidavit or a warrant of arrest with accompanying papers are acceptable alternatives to an indictment for initiating extradition proceedings. Therefore, the absence of a formal indictment does not automatically preclude extradition if the other required documentation, such as a sworn affidavit and a valid warrant of arrest, is present and sufficient to establish probable cause. The focus is on whether the submitted documents meet the statutory requirements for demonstrating probable cause and establishing the basis for the fugitive’s alleged criminal conduct in the demanding state, which in this case, the sworn affidavit and warrant of arrest would satisfy.

Oregon Revised Statute (ORS) 133.747 outlines the conditions under which a person charged with a crime in another state can be arrested in Oregon without a warrant, upon reasonable information that the person has committed an offense in the demanding state and has fled from justice. This statute is crucial for understanding the initial steps in the interstate rendition process. The core of the statute focuses on the reasonable belief of a law enforcement officer that the individual sought has committed a crime in another jurisdiction and is now present in Oregon. This belief must be based on probable cause, often established through information provided by the demanding state’s authorities, such as a warrant or an indictment. The statute does not require a formal rendition warrant to be issued by the governor before an arrest can be made under these circumstances. Instead, it permits a temporary detention to allow for the procurement of a proper rendition warrant from the governor. The arrested individual must then be brought before a judge, who will inform them of the charges and their right to demand formal extradition proceedings. The question probes the specific legal basis for an arrest without a warrant in Oregon for an out-of-state fugitive, directly referencing the relevant statutory provision that allows for such an action based on probable cause and the fugitive’s presence in Oregon. The statute’s purpose is to facilitate the swift apprehension of fugitives while still preserving due process rights through subsequent judicial review.

The scenario involves a fugitive, Elias Thorne, charged with a felony in Oregon and subsequently apprehended in Arizona. Oregon law, specifically ORS 133.747, governs the extradition process. The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act, adopted by Oregon, outlines the procedures for apprehending and surrendering fugitives from justice. A critical aspect of this process is the requirement for a formal demand from the executive authority of the demanding state (Oregon) to the executive authority of the asylum state (Arizona). This demand must be accompanied by specific documentation, including a copy of the indictment found, an information, or a complaint, under the seal of the court or judge, charging the accused with the commission of the crime. Additionally, a warrant issued by a judge or magistrate of the demanding state, charging the accused with the commission of the crime, must be presented. The law also specifies that the person arrested shall be informed of the reason for the arrest and given an opportunity to demand that the legality of the arrest be determined by a writ of habeas corpus. The governor of the asylum state then reviews the demand and supporting documents. If they conform to the law, the governor issues a warrant for the apprehension of the fugitive. The fugitive has the right to challenge the extradition through a habeas corpus proceeding in Arizona, where the court will examine whether the person is substantially charged with a crime in Oregon and whether the documents are in order. The governor of Arizona’s role is ministerial in issuing the warrant once the legal requirements are met, but the process itself is subject to judicial review. Therefore, the governor of Oregon initiates the process by making a formal demand, and the governor of Arizona executes the warrant after reviewing the demand and the fugitive’s potential challenge. The question tests the understanding of who initiates the formal request for extradition under Oregon’s framework, which is aligned with the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act. The governor of Oregon, as the executive authority, is responsible for issuing the formal demand to the governor of Arizona.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted in Oregon as ORS 133.743, governs the process of interstate rendition. A key aspect of this act concerns the documentation required for a lawful demand for extradition. Specifically, ORS 133.747 outlines the necessary papers. For a person charged with a crime in the demanding state, the governor of the demanding state must provide an application for extradition. This application must be accompanied by a copy of the indictment found, or an information supported by an affidavit, or by a complaint before a magistrate, charging the accused with the commission of the crime. Crucially, the documentation must also include a copy of the warrant issued upon such indictment, information, or complaint. The question describes a scenario where the Governor of California requests the extradition of an individual from Oregon for a felony. The supporting documents provided include an indictment and a warrant issued by a California court. However, the scenario omits a critical piece of documentation: the affidavit or complaint that underpins the warrant and indictment. While an indictment generally implies a finding of probable cause by a grand jury, the statutory requirement under ORS 133.747 and its model UCEA provisions necessitates the presentation of the charging instrument (indictment, information, or complaint) along with the warrant. The absence of a separate affidavit or complaint supporting the indictment, even if the indictment itself is valid in California, means the demand does not strictly conform to the statutory requirements for extradition from Oregon. Therefore, the Oregon governor’s role is to ensure the demand is in order; if it is not, the governor may refuse to issue a warrant for the arrest of the accused. The absence of the supporting affidavit or complaint, as detailed in the UCEA framework, renders the demand procedurally deficient for the purpose of interstate extradition.

Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) Chapter 133, specifically ORS 133.747, outlines the process for demanding an accused person from another state. This statute requires that the demand be accompanied by a copy of the indictment found, information, or complaint, which must be authenticated by the executive authority of the demanding state. Furthermore, ORS 133.753 mandates that such documents must substantially charge the person demanded with the commission of a crime in the demanding state. The critical element here is the authenticity and substantial charging nature of the accompanying documents. If the documents provided by the demanding state, in this case, Washington, are not properly authenticated by the Governor of Washington or do not substantially allege a crime under Washington law, the Oregon governor can refuse extradition. The requirement for authentication ensures that the demand originates from the proper executive authority, and the substantial charge requirement ensures that the individual is not being sought for frivolous or non-criminal matters. The absence of a prior arrest warrant in the demanding state is not a per se bar to extradition under the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act, as adopted by Oregon, provided the demand itself is otherwise valid and the accompanying documents meet the statutory requirements. Therefore, the primary legal basis for Governor Eva’s refusal would be the deficiency in the accompanying documentation, specifically the lack of proper authentication by the demanding state’s executive authority and the failure of the documents to substantially charge a crime.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by Oregon (ORS Chapter 133.747), governs the process of interstate rendition. A crucial aspect of this act concerns the permissible grounds for challenging extradition. While the demanding state must provide an indictment, information, or affidavit, and a warrant, the asylum state’s governor or a court can only inquire into limited matters. Specifically, the asylum state cannot delve into the guilt or innocence of the accused. Instead, the inquiry is generally limited to whether the person is substantially charged with a crime in the demanding state, whether the person is the one so charged, and whether the person has fled from justice. ORS 133.763 outlines the procedure for arrest prior to requisition and specifies that the accused may be committed to jail for a period not exceeding thirty days, pending the issuance of a governor’s warrant. If the accused is not delivered to the demanding state within this period, they may be discharged, but this does not preclude recommitment and rendition if a valid requisition is subsequently made. The core of the legal challenge in extradition proceedings typically revolves around the formal sufficiency of the documents presented by the demanding state and the identity of the accused, not the merits of the underlying criminal charges. The concept of “fled from justice” is also a key area of inquiry, but it pertains to whether the individual left the demanding state to avoid prosecution, not whether the prosecution itself is valid.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), as adopted and modified by Oregon, governs the process of returning fugitives from justice to demanding states. Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) Chapter 133 details these procedures. A critical aspect of extradition is the requirement for a proper rendition warrant. According to ORS 133.747, the demanding state’s executive authority must issue a warrant for the arrest of the person charged with a crime. This warrant, when presented to an Oregon magistrate, serves as the basis for the fugitive’s apprehension. Upon arrest, the fugitive must be brought before a court of record for a hearing to determine if they are the person named in the warrant and if they are substantially charged with a crime in the demanding state. The statute emphasizes that the governor of Oregon may also issue a warrant for the apprehension and delivery of a person who has committed a crime in Oregon and fled to another state, provided that state has a reciprocal law. However, when a person is arrested in Oregon pursuant to a rendition warrant issued by the governor of the demanding state, the inquiry at the habeas corpus hearing is generally limited to whether the person is the one named in the warrant and whether they are substantially charged with a crime in the demanding state. The law does not permit a broad inquiry into the guilt or innocence of the accused at this stage. The demanding state’s executive authority’s certification of the accompanying documents is prima facie evidence of their authenticity.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), as adopted and modified by Oregon, governs the process of extraditing individuals accused or convicted of crimes from one state to another. Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) Chapter 147 outlines these procedures. A key aspect of extradition is the governor’s warrant, which is the formal document issued by the governor of the demanding state authorizing the arrest and return of the fugitive. Upon arrest in the asylum state, the fugitive has a right to a hearing before a judge or magistrate. The purpose of this hearing is not to determine guilt or innocence but to verify certain fundamental facts, including whether the person arrested is the person named in the extradition documents, whether the person is substantially charged with a crime in the demanding state, and whether the person is a fugitive from justice. ORS 147.125 details the process of bringing the arrested person before a judge. The judge must inform the person of the complaint, their right to counsel, and their right to a writ of habeas corpus. The hearing itself is limited in scope; it cannot re-examine the merits of the charges in the demanding state. The focus is on the regularity of the extradition process and the identity of the accused. Therefore, the primary legal challenge available to an individual resisting extradition at this stage, under Oregon law and the UCEA, is a writ of habeas corpus, which specifically addresses the legality of the detention.

Oregon’s extradition process is governed by the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act, as codified in ORS Chapter 133. A crucial aspect of this act pertains to the requisition for extradition, specifically the documentation required from the demanding state. ORS 133.233 outlines the necessary papers that must accompany a governor’s warrant. These include a copy of the indictment, information, or complaint, and any warrant issued thereon, charging the accused with a crime. Additionally, a judgment of conviction or a sentence imposed in execution thereof must be provided if the accused has been convicted of a crime in the demanding state. The explanation of the crime must be sufficiently detailed to allow for a preliminary determination of probable cause. Furthermore, a sworn statement from the prosecutor of the demanding state, attesting to the fact that the accused was present in the demanding state at the time of the commission of the alleged crime, is mandatory. This statement is critical in establishing the jurisdictional nexus. The absence of any of these foundational documents, such as a sworn statement confirming presence in the demanding state at the time of the offense, would render the requisition legally insufficient under Oregon law for the initiation of extradition proceedings.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), as adopted by Oregon (ORS 133.743), outlines the procedures for extraditing individuals accused or convicted of crimes in other states. A critical aspect of this process involves the demand for extradition. The demanding state’s executive authority, typically the governor, must issue a formal written demand. This demand must be accompanied by a copy of the indictment found, or an information 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. ORS 133.753 specifies the required documentation. Specifically, for a person charged with a crime and who has fled from justice, the demand must be accompanied by a copy of the indictment or information, supported by an affidavit. For a person convicted of a crime, the demand must be accompanied by a copy of the judgment of conviction or sentence. The core of the question lies in understanding what constitutes a valid basis for the demand when the individual is charged but not yet convicted. The Oregon statute, mirroring the UCEA, requires that the demand for extradition of a person charged with a crime and who has fled from justice be accompanied by a copy of an indictment found in the demanding state or by an information supported by affidavit therein. Therefore, an affidavit supporting an information is a permissible and necessary component in such cases. The absence of a conviction means the demand cannot be based on a judgment of conviction. The demand does not need to include proof of guilt or innocence, as that is determined in the trial court of the demanding state. The presence of a sworn statement from the demanding governor affirming the person fled justice is also a requirement, but the question focuses on the accompanying documentation for a charged individual.

Oregon’s Uniform Criminal Extradition Act, codified in ORS Chapter 133, outlines the procedures for interstate rendition. A critical aspect is the demand for extradition, which must be accompanied by specific documentation as per ORS 133.724. This statute mandates that the demand include a copy of the indictment found, information, or complaint, and any warrant issued thereon. Crucially, it also requires a judgment of conviction or a sentence pronounced, if the person has been convicted. The act specifies that these documents must be authenticated by the executive authority of the demanding state. Furthermore, ORS 133.734 addresses the arrest of a person believed to be subject to extradition. If the arrest is made without a warrant, the person must be taken before a judge and informed of the reason for the arrest. The judge then determines if there is probable cause to believe the person is the one named in the warrant or accusation of the demanding state. The question focuses on the required documentation for a valid extradition demand from a sister state, specifically when the accused has already been convicted and sentenced. The core of the legal requirement for such a demand, as per the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act as adopted in Oregon, centers on presenting proof of the conviction and sentence. Therefore, the inclusion of a certified copy of the judgment of conviction and the sentence pronounced is essential for a legally sound demand.

Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) Chapter 133 governs extradition. Specifically, ORS 133.745 outlines the process for demanding a person charged with a crime in another state. This statute requires that the demand be accompanied by a copy of the indictment found, or an information supported by affidavit, or by a complaint made before a magistrate, showing the crime charged. The documents must substantially charge the person demanded with having committed a crime in the demanding state. ORS 133.747 further specifies that the indictment, information, or affidavit must be authenticated by the executive authority of the demanding state. This authentication process ensures the integrity and legitimacy of the documents presented for extradition. The role of the Oregon Governor is crucial in issuing the arrest warrant for the fugitive, as detailed in ORS 133.755. The Governor must be satisfied that the person is substantially charged with a crime in another state and that the person sought is a fugitive from justice. The statutory requirements are designed to prevent arbitrary arrests and ensure that extradition is sought only for legitimate criminal proceedings.

Oregon’s extradition process is governed by the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act, codified in ORS Chapter 133. A crucial aspect of this act is the requirement for a proper demand from the demanding state. When a person is arrested in Oregon on a fugitive warrant issued by a demanding state, the Governor of Oregon must issue a warrant for their apprehension and delivery to the demanding state. This warrant is based on a formal demand that includes specific documentation. According to ORS 133.260, the demand must be accompanied by a copy of the indictment found in the demanding state, or by an information and affidavit made before a magistrate there, which substantially charges the person with having committed a crime in that state. Alternatively, if the person was convicted of a crime in the demanding state and escaped from confinement, the demand must be accompanied by a copy of the judgment of conviction or sentence, and by a statement by the judge or magistrate that the person has escaped from confinement. The question tests the understanding of the necessary documentation required for a valid extradition demand under Oregon law, specifically when the alleged offense occurred in a demanding state and the accused is apprehended in Oregon. The scenario involves a request from California, which is a demanding state. The core of the issue is whether the provided documentation meets the statutory requirements for initiating extradition proceedings from Oregon. The documentation provided by California includes an arrest warrant issued by a California Superior Court, along with an affidavit sworn to before a judge of that court, which details the alleged criminal conduct constituting the offense of grand theft. This affidavit, made before a magistrate and substantially charging the person with a crime, fulfills the requirements outlined in ORS 133.260 for a demand based on an indictment or information and affidavit. Therefore, the demand is legally sufficient to proceed with extradition.

Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) Chapter 147 governs the process of extradition. Specifically, ORS 147.010 outlines the requirements for an extradition demand from a demanding state. For a person to be subject to extradition, they must be charged with a crime in the demanding state, and the demand must be accompanied by a copy of the indictment found or an information supported by affidavit. The indictment or affidavit must substantially charge the person with committing a crime under the laws of the demanding state. Furthermore, the person must be found within the demanding state at the time of the commission of the crime. The governor of the demanding state must certify that the person is a fugitive from justice. In this scenario, the governor of California has certified that Alistair is a fugitive from justice. The demand includes a sworn affidavit from a District Attorney in California that Alistair committed grand theft auto in San Francisco. This affidavit substantially charges Alistair with a crime under California law. However, the critical missing element, as per ORS 147.010, is the assurance that Alistair was physically present in California when the alleged crime occurred. Without this, the Oregon governor cannot be satisfied that Alistair is a fugitive from justice from California. The demand is insufficient if it fails to establish the accused’s presence in the demanding state at the time of the offense.

Oregon’s extradition process is governed by the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act, codified in ORS Chapter 133. A crucial aspect of this act pertains to the procedures and documentation required when a person is sought for a crime committed in another state. Specifically, ORS 133.747 outlines the requirements for an arrest warrant issued by a demanding state. For an arrest to be lawful under the extradition statutes, the warrant must be accompanied by a copy of the indictment found or by an information supported by affidavit. This information must charge the accused with the commission of a crime in the demanding state. The affidavit must be made before a magistrate of that state, and it must substantially charge the person with having committed a crime. Furthermore, the warrant must be accompanied by a copy of the charging document that is authenticated by the executive authority of the demanding state. This authentication process ensures the integrity and validity of the document being presented to Oregon authorities. The purpose of these requirements is to provide a clear and verifiable basis for the arrest and subsequent extradition, safeguarding against unfounded or improperly initiated proceedings. Without these foundational documents, properly authenticated, the legal basis for holding an individual for extradition from Oregon is compromised. The executive authority’s authentication is a critical step in validating the demanding state’s legal process.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by Oregon (ORS 133.743), governs the process of extraditing individuals accused of crimes from one state to another. A critical aspect of this process is the demand for extradition, which must be accompanied by specific documentation. According to ORS 133.753, the demanding state’s executive authority must present a copy of the indictment, an information supported by affidavit, or a judgment of conviction or sentence, along with a statement that the person has fled from justice. Furthermore, the documents must allege that the accused was present in the demanding state at the time of the commission of the alleged crime and that thereafter the accused fled from the state. The question posits a scenario where the governor of California requests the extradition of an individual from Oregon for a crime allegedly committed in California. The provided documentation includes an indictment and a sworn affidavit from a California law enforcement officer detailing the alleged criminal acts and stating the accused was present in California when the acts occurred and subsequently fled. This documentation meets the statutory requirements for a valid extradition demand under Oregon law, as it includes the indictment and the affidavit supporting the information, both of which allege presence and flight. Therefore, the governor of Oregon is legally obligated to issue a warrant for the arrest of the accused.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by Oregon (ORS Chapter 133.743 to 133.860), governs the process of extraditing individuals accused or convicted of crimes in other states. A critical aspect of this act concerns the authority of the governor to issue a rendition warrant. When a demand for extradition is made by the executive authority of another state, the governor of Oregon must be satisfied that the person sought is substantially charged with a crime in that demanding state. This satisfaction is typically based on the documentation accompanying the demand, which includes an indictment, an information supported by a sworn affidavit, or a judgment of conviction or a sentence. ORS 133.753 outlines the prerequisites for the governor’s warrant. The governor’s warrant is the legal instrument that authorizes the arrest and detention of the fugitive. The role of the asylum state’s governor in issuing this warrant is ministerial in nature, meaning they are generally obligated to issue it if the demand is in proper form and the accompanying documents meet the statutory requirements. However, the governor retains discretion to review the sufficiency of the charging documents and the overall legality of the demand. The question tests the understanding of which official has the ultimate authority to authorize the return of a fugitive under Oregon’s adoption of the UCEA. The governor of Oregon is the designated authority to issue the rendition warrant, thereby granting permission for the arrest and transport of the individual to the demanding state. This power is derived from the constitutional mandate and further defined by state statutes implementing the UCEA.

Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) Chapter 133 governs extradition. Specifically, ORS 133.747 outlines the requirements for an arrest of a person charged with a crime in another state. When a person is arrested in Oregon on a fugitive warrant issued by another state, the demanding state must present specific documentation to the Oregon authorities. This documentation typically includes a copy of the indictment, information, or complaint, and a copy of the warrant issued by the appropriate judicial officer in the demanding state. The statute emphasizes that these documents must substantially charge the person with a crime under the laws of the demanding state. The process is designed to ensure that the individual is indeed sought for a legitimate criminal offense in the originating jurisdiction before Oregon facilitates their transfer. The governor of Oregon is the ultimate authority for issuing the rendition warrant, but the initial arrest and detention are based on the presentation of these charging documents and the warrant from the demanding state. The focus is on the legal basis for the charge and the existence of a valid warrant from the demanding jurisdiction, not on the guilt or innocence of the accused at this preliminary stage. The documents must be properly authenticated as required by law, which typically means certification by the executive authority of the demanding state.

Oregon’s extradition law, primarily governed by the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act as adopted in ORS Chapter 133, outlines the procedures for apprehending and returning fugitives from justice to demanding states. A crucial aspect of this process involves the governor’s role and the documentation required. When a person is arrested in Oregon on a warrant issued by another state, the demanding state must provide specific documentation to Oregon authorities. This documentation typically includes a copy of the indictment, information, or affidavit charging the fugitive with a crime, along with a copy of the warrant issued upon such charge. The law mandates that these documents must substantially charge the person with the commission of a crime under the laws of the demanding state. Furthermore, the documents must be accompanied by an affidavit made before a magistrate of the demanding state, and the affidavit must allege that the accused was present in the demanding state at the time of the commission of the alleged crime. The governor of Oregon then reviews these documents to ensure they conform to the law and issue a warrant for the fugitive’s arrest and delivery to the agent of the demanding state. The absence of a sworn affidavit before a magistrate in the demanding state, alleging presence at the time of the crime, would render the extradition request procedurally deficient. Therefore, for a valid extradition request from California to Oregon, the supporting documents must include such a sworn affidavit.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by Oregon, outlines the procedural framework for interstate rendition. A crucial aspect is the governor’s warrant, which is the legal instrument authorizing the arrest and transfer of an accused individual. The UCEA, as codified in Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) Chapter 133, specifically addresses the requirements for such a warrant. ORS 133.240 details that the application for extradition must be accompanied by a copy of the indictment found, information, or complaint, and a copy of the warrant issued thereon, charging the accused with a crime. Furthermore, ORS 133.250 specifies that the governor of the demanding state must demand the fugitive by a sworn application, accompanied by a copy of the indictment, information, or complaint, and a copy of the warrant issued thereon, or by a judgment of conviction or a sentence. When a person is arrested on a governor’s warrant in Oregon, they have the right to challenge the legality of their detention through a writ of habeas corpus. The scope of this review is generally limited to verifying whether the extradition documents are in order, if the person arrested is the person charged, and if the person is substantially charged with a crime in the demanding state. It is not a trial on the merits of the underlying charges. The Oregon Supreme Court has consistently held that the governor’s warrant, regular on its face, is prima facie evidence of the prisoner’s fugitive status and that the demanding state has jurisdiction. Therefore, the primary legal basis for challenging extradition in Oregon, when arrested on a governor’s warrant, rests on the sufficiency and regularity of the extradition documents presented to the Oregon governor.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by Oregon, outlines the procedural requirements for interstate rendition. A crucial aspect is the demand for extradition, which must be accompanied by specific documentation. According to ORS 133.745, the demanding state’s executive authority must present a copy of the indictment, information, or accusation, along with a judgment of conviction or a sentence. If the accused is charged with a crime but not yet convicted, the demand must include a copy of an indictment found in the demanding state, or an information supported by affidavit, or an affidavit made before a magistrate there, charging the accused with the commission of a crime. The document must also be accompanied by a copy of the judgment of conviction or the sentence. If the accused has been convicted but has escaped or fled from justice, a copy of the judgment of conviction or sentence is required. For those charged but not convicted, the indictment or information must be accompanied by an affidavit charging the accused with a crime. The explanation does not involve any calculations. The core principle is the proper authentication and presentation of the charging instrument and conviction/sentence documents to initiate the extradition process. Oregon law, mirroring the UCEA, mandates these specific documents to ensure the legitimacy of the demand and to provide the accused with due process.

Oregon’s extradition process is primarily governed by ORS Chapter 144 and the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), which Oregon has adopted. The UCEA provides a framework for interstate rendition of fugitives. A key aspect is the governor’s role. The governor of the asylum state (Oregon, in this scenario) must issue a warrant for the arrest of the person charged. This warrant is typically based on a formal demand from the executive authority of the demanding state, accompanied by a copy of the indictment, information, affidavit, or judgment of conviction and sentence, authenticated by the executive authority of the demanding state. In this case, the demanding state is California. California’s demand for the return of Mr. Aris Thorne is accompanied by a certified copy of a judgment of conviction from a California superior court and a sentence imposed. This documentation is sufficient under ORS 144.334 and the UCEA to support a demand for extradition. Upon receiving such a demand, the Governor of Oregon is authorized to issue a warrant for the arrest of the fugitive. The person arrested under this warrant has the right to challenge the legality of their detention through a habeas corpus proceeding. However, the scope of inquiry in a habeas corpus proceeding in an extradition case is limited. The court can only inquire into whether the person is substantially charged with a crime in the demanding state, whether the person is the one so charged, and whether the person is a fugitive from justice. The guilt or innocence of the accused, or any defenses they might have to the charge, are matters for the demanding state’s courts to decide. Therefore, the existence of a valid judgment of conviction and sentence from California, properly authenticated, establishes that Mr. Thorne is substantially charged with a crime in California and is subject to rendition. The Oregon governor’s warrant is the necessary executive action to effectuate the extradition.

The scenario involves the extradition of an individual from Oregon to California for a felony offense. Oregon’s extradition procedures are primarily governed by the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act, codified in ORS Chapter 147. A crucial aspect of this act is the requirement for a formal demand from the demanding state, accompanied by a copy of the indictment or an information supported by an affidavit. The demanding state must also ensure that the accused committed a crime in that state. In this case, California is the demanding state and the alleged offense is a felony. The Oregon Governor’s role is to issue a warrant for the arrest of the fugitive once the demand is presented and found to be in order. The fugitive then has the right to challenge the legality of their detention through a writ of habeas corpus. However, the grounds for challenging extradition are limited. Generally, a fugitive can only contest the identity of the person arrested, whether they were in the demanding state at the time of the alleged offense, and if the paperwork is in order. The question of guilt or innocence is not to be determined during the extradition process. Therefore, if California’s demand is properly certified by the Governor of California, and the individual is indeed the person named in the warrant, and there is evidence they were in California when the crime occurred, Oregon authorities must proceed with the extradition. The specific question revolves around the governor’s discretion and the grounds for refusal. Oregon law, consistent with the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act, does not permit the governor to refuse extradition based on the severity of the crime in the demanding state or potential issues with the demanding state’s correctional facilities, provided the formal requirements are met. The governor’s role is ministerial in ensuring compliance with the Act and the U.S. Constitution’s Extradition Clause.

The core of Oregon’s extradition process, as governed by ORS Chapter 133, particularly sections like ORS 133.747 and ORS 133.749, focuses on the governor’s role in issuing and executing warrants. When a demand for extradition is made by the executive authority of another state, Oregon’s governor must review the accompanying documents. These documents typically include a formal demand, an indictment or affidavit made before a magistrate, and an authenticated copy of the law under which the accused is charged. ORS 133.747 mandates that if the governor finds the documents are in order and the accused is charged with a crime, the governor shall issue a warrant for the apprehension of the person. This warrant is directed to any sheriff, marshal, or other police officer. The process is initiated by the requesting state, and Oregon’s governor acts as the approving authority, ensuring compliance with the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act as adopted in Oregon. The governor’s discretion is primarily limited to ensuring the legal sufficiency of the demand and the charging documents. The question hinges on the specific legal authority that authorizes the issuance of the warrant for apprehension within Oregon when a person is sought by another state. This authority is vested in the governor, who then delegates the execution of the warrant to law enforcement.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by Oregon as ORS Chapter 133.701 to 133.850, 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 from a demanding state and the subsequent arrest and hearing in the asylum state. When a person is arrested in Oregon on a governor’s warrant issued by another state, they are entitled to a hearing before a judge. At this hearing, the arrested individual can challenge the legality of their detention. The grounds for challenging extradition are limited. They typically include: the person is not the one named in the warrant, the demanding state does not have jurisdiction over the alleged crime, or the paperwork is insufficient or fraudulent. The question centers on the specific requirements for the governor’s warrant itself under Oregon law, which is based on the UCEA. ORS 133.743 outlines the prerequisites for issuing a governor’s warrant. It mandates that the warrant must substantially charge the person with a crime under the laws of the demanding state. This means the warrant must be accompanied by a copy of the indictment found, or an information supported by affidavit, or by a complaint before a magistrate, authenticated by the governor of the demanding state. The core of the legal challenge lies in the authenticity and sufficiency of the charging document accompanying the warrant. If the accompanying documentation, such as an affidavit or indictment, fails to substantially charge a crime under the laws of the demanding state, then the governor’s warrant issued by Oregon’s governor would be invalid, and the individual would be discharged. The question tests the understanding that the warrant’s validity hinges on the underlying charge being legally sufficient in the demanding jurisdiction, as evidenced by the accompanying authenticated documents.