The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by Washington State, governs interstate extradition. A crucial aspect of this act is the requirement for a valid rendition warrant. For a rendition warrant to be valid, it must be supported by an indictment found in the demanding state or by a complaint made before a magistrate there, accompanied by an affidavit showing probable cause. The demanding state’s executive authority must also certify that the person has fled from justice. In Washington, the governor’s rendition warrant is the primary document authorizing arrest and delivery. The UCEA, as codified in Revised Code of Washington (RCW) Chapter 10.88, outlines the procedural safeguards for individuals sought in extradition. These safeguards include the right to challenge the legality of the arrest and detention, typically through a writ of habeas corpus. The grounds for challenging extradition are generally limited to verifying the identity of the accused, confirming that the person is the one sought by the demanding state, and ensuring that the documents presented are in order and comply with the UCEA. A critical element is the demonstration that the person has been charged with a crime in the demanding state and has fled from its justice. The demanding state must present evidence of these facts. The accused cannot be extradited for a crime committed in Washington if they were not present in the demanding state when the crime was committed, or if they were not a fugitive from justice from that state. The governor of Washington has the discretion to deny extradition if it would be unjust or oppressive.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by Washington State, governs the process of returning fugitives from justice to the demanding state. A crucial aspect of this process is the arrest of the alleged fugitive prior to the issuance of a Governor’s warrant. Under RCW 10.88.240, an arrest may be made on a sworn complaint or an indictment. If the arrest is made without a warrant, the accused must be brought before a judge or magistrate without unnecessary delay. The judge then conducts a hearing to determine if the person is the one named in the complaint and if they are substantially charged with a crime in the demanding state. If the judge finds probable cause, the person can be committed to jail for a period not exceeding thirty days pending the arrival of a Governor’s warrant. However, if no Governor’s warrant is issued within that thirty-day period, the person must be discharged. This discharge does not preclude a new application for extradition, but the initial commitment period is strictly limited. The question focuses on the maximum duration an individual can be held in custody in the asylum state (Washington) based solely on a complaint or indictment from the demanding state, before the Governor’s warrant must be presented. This period is explicitly defined by statute.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by Washington State under Revised Code of Washington (RCW) Chapter 10.88, governs interstate rendition. A crucial aspect of this act is the requirement for a governor’s warrant to initiate extradition proceedings. When a person is arrested in a demanding state on a fugitive warrant, the demanding state’s governor must issue a formal warrant. This warrant, along with supporting documents such as an indictment or an affidavit made before a magistrate, and a copy of the law under which the person is charged, must be presented to the governor of the asylum state (in this case, Washington). The asylum state’s governor then reviews these documents to ensure they meet the UCEA’s requirements. If the documents are in order, the governor of Washington will issue their own warrant, authorizing the arrest and delivery of the accused to the demanding state. The role of the demanding governor’s warrant is foundational to the legal authority for extradition, signifying that the demanding state has formally requested the return of the individual and has provided the necessary legal basis for that request. Without this specific warrant from the demanding governor, the extradition process cannot legally commence.

The scenario involves a request for extradition from California to Washington for a felony offense. Under the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), as adopted by Washington State (RCW Chapter 10.88), the governor of the demanding state (California) must issue a formal demand for the return of the accused. This demand must be accompanied by a copy of the indictment found, or an information or complaint made before a magistrate, charging the accused with having committed a crime under the laws of the demanding state. Crucially, this charging document must be authenticated by the executive authority of the demanding state. Furthermore, the UCEA requires that the person sought be substantially charged with a crime. The governor of the asylum state (Washington) reviews this demand. If the demand is in order and the person is found to be the one charged, the governor issues a warrant for the arrest of the fugitive. The fugitive then has the right to challenge their detention through a writ of habeas corpus, but the scope of this review is limited. The primary focus is on whether the person is substantially charged with a crime in the demanding state and whether the demand is formally correct. The fact that the alleged offense occurred in California and the individual is currently in Washington makes Washington the asylum state. The legal basis for the extradition is the UCEA and the constitutional provisions regarding interstate rendition. The question of whether the individual can be extradited for a misdemeanor is irrelevant to the initial procedural steps of the governor’s demand and warrant issuance, as the UCEA applies to all crimes, not just felonies. The existence of a valid arrest warrant from California, even if not yet formally presented to the Washington governor, does not supersede the requirement for a formal demand under the UCEA for interstate extradition.

The scenario involves a fugitive, Ms. Anya Sharma, who has allegedly committed a felony in Washington state and subsequently fled to California. Washington, as the demanding state, must present a formal demand for extradition to California, the asylum state. This demand is governed by the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by both states, and federal law, primarily 18 U.S.C. § 3182. The UCEA requires the demand to be accompanied by a copy of the indictment found, or an information supported by affidavit, or by a complaint made before a magistrate, charging the accused with the commission of the crime. Crucially, the charging document must substantially charge the person with having committed a crime under the laws of the demanding state. The question hinges on whether the affidavit supporting the criminal complaint in Washington, which details Ms. Sharma’s alleged actions constituting attempted grand larceny, meets this requirement. The UCEA, as interpreted in cases like *State v. Smith*, emphasizes that the charging document must demonstrate probable cause that the accused committed the crime. The affidavit, by detailing the specific actions of Ms. Sharma – including her entry into the victim’s vehicle without permission, her attempt to start the engine, and her subsequent apprehension – provides the factual basis for probable cause that she committed attempted grand larceny under Washington law. Therefore, the affidavit, when attached to the complaint, satisfies the requirement for a charging document that substantially charges the commission of a crime. The governor of Washington then issues a warrant for Ms. Sharma’s arrest, which is presented to the California governor for review and issuance of an arrest warrant. The fugitive has the right to challenge the legality of their detention through habeas corpus proceedings in California, but the scope of such review is limited to whether the fugitive is substantially charged with a crime and whether the documents conform to the UCEA. The affidavit’s content directly addresses the substantial charge requirement.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by Washington State, governs interstate extradition. A critical aspect of this act is the governor’s warrant, which is the formal document authorizing the arrest and transfer of an individual sought by another state. For an extradition to be lawful, the demanding state must establish that the person sought is substantially charged with a crime in the demanding state. This requirement is typically met by presenting an indictment, an information supported by a complaint under oath, or a judgment of conviction or a sentence which the person is obviously a fugitive from justice. The UCEA, specifically Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 10.88.240, outlines the prerequisites for the governor’s warrant. It mandates that the executive authority of the demanding state must have produced sufficient evidence to the governor of the asylum state 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 phrase “substantially charged” implies that the indictment or affidavit must contain sufficient factual allegations to establish probable cause that the accused committed the crime alleged. If the demanding state fails to provide evidence demonstrating the accused’s presence in the demanding state at the time of the offense and their subsequent flight, the governor’s warrant may be challenged on these grounds. The question revolves around the sufficiency of the charging document from the demanding state and its role in the issuance of the governor’s warrant under Washington law.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by Washington State, governs the process of extraditing individuals accused or convicted of crimes across state lines. A crucial aspect of this act is the requirement for a formal demand from the demanding state’s executive authority, typically the governor, accompanied by a copy of the indictment, information, affidavit, or judgment of conviction. This demand must be accompanied by a warrant issued by a judicial officer of the demanding state. The accused must be arrested based on a warrant issued by a judicial officer in the asylum state, which can be based on the demanding state’s warrant or an affidavit showing probable cause. The arrested individual has the right to habeas corpus to challenge the legality of their detention. The demanding state must prove that the person arrested is indeed the person charged with the crime and that the person committed the crime in the demanding state. Washington’s adoption of the UCEA, as codified in Revised Code of Washington (RCW) Chapter 10.88, mandates that the person sought be substantially charged with a crime in the demanding state. The inquiry in the asylum state is limited to whether the person is substantially charged, whether the person is the one so charged, and whether the person is a fugitive from justice. The governor of the asylum state has discretion in issuing the warrant of arrest and surrender, but this discretion is generally exercised based on the legal sufficiency of the demand. The concept of a “fugitive from justice” under the UCEA requires that the person was present in the demanding state at the time the crime was committed and subsequently left that state. The UCEA does not permit the asylum state to inquire into the guilt or innocence of the accused, as that is reserved for the courts of the demanding state.

The scenario involves a fugitive, Mr. Silas Croft, who is alleged to have committed a felony in Washington State and has fled to Oregon. Washington State, as the demanding state, initiates extradition proceedings. The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by both Washington (RCW Chapter 10.88) and Oregon (ORS Chapter 133.743), governs these proceedings. A crucial aspect of extradition is the issuance of a Governor’s warrant. For extradition to be valid, the demanding state’s governor must issue a warrant based upon a formal application. This application typically includes an indictment or an affidavit made before a magistrate, charging the accused with a crime. Furthermore, the application must be accompanied by proof that the person charged is a fugitive from justice. The UCEA mandates that the demanding state’s governor must demand the person’s surrender by the executive authority of the asylum state. The asylum state’s governor then reviews the documentation. If the documentation meets the statutory requirements, the asylum state’s governor issues a warrant for the arrest of the fugitive. The fugitive is then brought before a judge or magistrate in the asylum state to determine if they are the person named in the warrant and if they are lawfully subject to extradition. The core of the question revolves around the initial step taken by Washington to reclaim Mr. Croft. This involves the formal request from Washington’s governor to Oregon’s governor, supported by the necessary documentation as prescribed by the UCEA. The process begins with the demanding state’s governor’s application, which then leads to the asylum state’s governor’s warrant. Therefore, the Governor of Washington initiating the formal request for surrender is the foundational step.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by Washington State, outlines the procedures for interstate rendition. A crucial aspect of this process is the demand for extradition, which must be accompanied by specific documentation. According to RCW 10.88.200, the demanding state’s executive authority must furnish a copy of the indictment, information, or affidavit made before a magistrate, substantially charging the person demanded with committing a crime in that state. Furthermore, the demand must include a copy of the judgment of conviction or sentence, if the person has been convicted and has escaped or fled from justice. In this scenario, the governor of Oregon has provided a copy of the arrest warrant and an affidavit detailing the alleged crime, but no judgment of conviction or sentence has been submitted, as the individual has not yet been tried or convicted in Oregon. Therefore, the extradition demand is insufficient because it lacks the required documentation of a conviction or sentence, which is a prerequisite when the basis for extradition is a conviction or sentence rather than an indictment, information, or affidavit charging a crime.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by Washington State, governs the process of extraditing individuals accused or convicted of crimes across state lines. A critical aspect of this process involves the documentation presented by the demanding state. For an individual charged with a crime, the demanding state must provide an indictment or an information supported by an affidavit. An indictment is a formal accusation issued by a grand jury, while an information is a formal accusation presented by a prosecuting attorney. Both serve as the legal basis for the charge. The UCEA specifies that these documents must substantially charge the person with a crime under the laws of the demanding state. Furthermore, the governor of the demanding state must issue a formal written demand for the person’s surrender, which must be accompanied by the charging documents and a statement that the person has fled from justice. The demanding state must also certify that the person sought is a fugitive from its justice. In Washington, the governor of the asylum state (Washington in this scenario) reviews this demand. If the demand is in order and the person is properly identified as the fugitive, the governor will issue a warrant for the arrest of the fugitive. The process emphasizes due process, ensuring that the individual is indeed the person named in the warrant and that the demand is legally sufficient. The absence of a sworn affidavit supporting an information, or the lack of a proper indictment, would render the demand legally deficient under the UCEA, potentially leading to the dismissal of the extradition proceedings.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by Washington State, governs the process of extraditing individuals accused or convicted of crimes from one state to another. A crucial aspect of this act is the requirement for a formal demand from the demanding state, which must be accompanied by specific documentation. According to Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 10.88.250, the demand must include a copy of the indictment, information, or complaint, authenticated by the executive authority of the demanding state. It also requires a copy of the judgment of conviction or sentence, if the person has been convicted. Furthermore, RCW 10.88.250 mandates that the indictment, information, complaint, judgment, or sentence must be accompanied by a statement by the executive authority of the demanding state that the person has broken the laws of the demanding state, or of some other state, and that the person has fled to avoid prosecution or punishment. The core of the question revolves around what constitutes legally sufficient documentation for an extradition demand under Washington law. Specifically, when a person is sought for a crime committed in Oregon, and the demand is presented to Washington authorities, the demand must be properly authenticated and include the charging instrument. The question implies a scenario where the charging document is an information, which is a valid form of accusation. The key is that the information must be authenticated by the executive authority of Oregon, and it must be accompanied by a statement that the individual fled to avoid prosecution. The absence of a warrant of arrest from Oregon, while a common component of extradition, is not the sole determinant of a valid demand if the information itself is properly authenticated and accompanied by the necessary statement of flight. Therefore, the most legally sound basis for denying the extradition, given the provided information, would be if the authenticated information itself is missing or if the accompanying statement of flight is absent or insufficient. The scenario posits that the Oregon information is properly authenticated and a statement of flight is included. The question asks what would render the demand invalid. A missing warrant of arrest from the demanding state, while potentially an issue in some contexts, does not automatically invalidate the demand under RCW 10.88.250 if the core requirements of an authenticated charging document and a statement of flight are met. The critical element for invalidation, as per the statute, would be the lack of proper authentication of the charging document or the absence of the statement of flight. However, the question frames the demand as having these elements. Therefore, the most pertinent legal deficiency, if any, would relate to the foundational requirements of the demand itself as outlined in the UCEA as adopted in Washington. The question tests the understanding of the essential components of an extradition demand.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by Washington State, outlines the process for interstate rendition of fugitives. A crucial aspect of this process involves the governor’s warrant, which is the formal executive document authorizing the arrest and surrender of an individual sought by another state. For a governor’s warrant to be legally sufficient and withstand challenges, it must be supported by specific documentation as mandated by the UCEA and federal law. This documentation typically includes an affidavit made before a magistrate, substantially charging the fugitive with a crime in the demanding state, and a copy of the indictment or information, if any, or a warrant issued upon such charge. The demanding state must also provide a copy of the judgment of conviction or sentence, if the fugitive was convicted and escaped. In the scenario presented, the governor of California requests the extradition of Mr. Abernathy from Washington. The request is accompanied by a sworn affidavit detailing the alleged crime and a copy of the arrest warrant issued in California. However, it lacks a copy of the judgment of conviction or sentence, as Mr. Abernathy has not yet been convicted; he is alleged to have committed a crime. The UCEA requires that if the fugitive is charged with a crime but not yet convicted, the demanding state must provide an indictment or information. The absence of an indictment or information, coupled with the presence of an arrest warrant and affidavit, means the documentation is incomplete for a charge of a crime not yet tried. Therefore, the governor of Washington cannot lawfully issue a rendition warrant based on this incomplete submission, as it does not meet the evidentiary requirements for an unconvicted fugitive.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by Washington State, governs the process of interstate rendition. A critical aspect of this act is the requirement for a formal demand from the demanding state, accompanied by specific documentation. This documentation typically includes a copy of the indictment, information, or complaint, along with a warrant for arrest, all properly authenticated. The demanding state must also certify that the person sought is a fugitive from justice, meaning they were present in the demanding state at the time of the commission of the crime and subsequently departed. Washington’s governor, upon receiving such a demand and reviewing the accompanying documents, must issue a warrant for the arrest of the accused. The accused then has the right to challenge the legality of their detention through a writ of habeas corpus. During such proceedings, the court will examine whether the demanding state has met the statutory requirements for extradition, including proper authentication of documents, proof that the person is the one named in the warrant, and that they are a fugitive from justice. The question revolves around the specific evidentiary standard required to prove that the person sought is indeed the individual named in the extradition documents and that they are a fugitive from justice. While the demanding state’s certification is prima facie evidence, the defense can present evidence to rebut this presumption. However, the standard of proof to overcome the governor’s rendition warrant is not a preponderance of the evidence or beyond a reasonable doubt; rather, it requires a showing that the person is not the person named in the warrant or that they were not in the demanding state at the time of the offense. The question tests the understanding of the specific legal threshold for challenging extradition on these grounds. The scenario presents a defense attorney attempting to argue that their client, a resident of Washington, was not in California at the time of the alleged crime. The core legal issue is what level of proof is needed to successfully contest the extradition based on this claim. The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act, as interpreted in case law, requires that the person sought demonstrate by conclusive evidence that they were not present in the demanding state when the crime was committed. This is a high bar, intended to prevent frivolous challenges and ensure the efficient rendition of fugitives. Therefore, the defense must present evidence that definitively proves the absence of the accused from California during the specified period.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by Washington State, governs the process of extraditing individuals accused or convicted of crimes across state lines. A critical aspect of this act pertains to the governor’s warrant, which is the formal authorization for extradition. The UCEA, and specifically Washington’s adoption of it, requires that the demanding state’s governor issue a formal written demand for the fugitive. This demand must be accompanied by authenticated copies of the indictment, information, or affidavit charging the person with a crime, along with any warrant issued upon it. Furthermore, the demanding state must demonstrate that the person sought is substantially charged with a crime in that state. The process involves review by the governor of the asylum state (Washington in this case), who must be satisfied that the person is substantially charged with a crime and that the demand conforms to the UCEA. If the governor finds these conditions met, they issue their own warrant for the arrest of the fugitive. The question asks about the primary legal instrument that initiates the formal demand from the demanding state to Washington. This instrument is the Governor’s Warrant issued by the demanding state’s executive, as stipulated by the UCEA. While other documents like indictments or affidavits are supporting evidence, the warrant itself is the formal demand.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by Washington State, governs the process of extraditing individuals accused or convicted of crimes across state lines. A critical aspect of this act concerns the validity of the demanding state’s documentation. Specifically, under RCW 10.88.200, the arrest of a person charged with a crime in another state, but not yet found in the demanding state, requires a judicial finding that the person is the person named in the rendition warrant. This finding is typically based on evidence presented at a hearing. The question presents a scenario where a governor’s warrant is issued, but the accompanying affidavit from the demanding state (Oregon) is alleged to be based on hearsay and lacks direct personal knowledge of the affiant regarding the identity of the fugitive. In Washington, while affidavits are permitted, they must meet certain standards to establish probable cause for arrest and extradition. The UCEA, as implemented in Washington, emphasizes that the demanding state’s documents must be sufficient to establish probable cause. If the affidavit supporting the warrant is entirely hearsay and does not provide any independent corroboration or basis for believing the accused is the person sought, it may be deemed insufficient to meet the probable cause standard for extradition. The fugitive’s attorney can challenge the sufficiency of the demanding state’s documentation. If the Oregon affidavit is demonstrably composed solely of inadmissible hearsay without any supporting direct evidence or sworn testimony establishing the fugitive’s identity and presence in Oregon at the time of the offense, a Washington court would likely find the warrant defective. This would prevent extradition until the demanding state provides legally sufficient documentation. Therefore, the most appropriate action for the fugitive’s attorney is to challenge the sufficiency of the supporting documentation by arguing that it fails to establish probable cause due to its reliance on inadmissible hearsay and lack of personal knowledge.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by Washington State, governs interstate rendition. A crucial aspect of the UCEA is the requirement for a formal demand from the demanding state, which must include specific documentation. This documentation typically consists of a copy of the indictment, information, or affidavit charging the fugitive with a crime, along with a copy of the warrant issued upon the indictment, information, or affidavit. Crucially, these documents must be authenticated by the executive authority of the demanding state. The governor of the asylum state then reviews this demand. If the demand is found to be in order and the person is indeed the one sought, the governor issues a warrant for the arrest of the fugitive. The UCEA also provides for the arrest of fugitives without a warrant under certain circumstances, such as when a credible charge is known, but this does not negate the subsequent requirement for a formal demand to effectuate extradition. The process emphasizes procedural regularity to ensure that individuals are not subjected to unwarranted rendition. The role of the governor in the asylum state is discretionary, but it is generally limited to determining if the demand is procedurally sound and if the individual is the person named.

Washington State, like all states, operates under the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), codified in Revised Code of Washington (RCW) Chapter 10.88. This act governs the process by which a person accused or convicted of a crime in one state is returned to that state from another. A critical aspect of this process involves the governor’s role in issuing or revoking a warrant. The governor of the asylum state (the state where the fugitive is located) must issue a warrant for the arrest of the fugitive upon receiving a proper demand from the executive authority of the demanding state. The UCEA specifies the required documentation for such a demand, including a copy of the indictment, information, or affidavit charging the fugitive with a crime, and a copy of the warrant issued thereon. Furthermore, the UCEA outlines the process for apprehending and detaining a fugitive. Upon arrest, the fugitive must be informed of the cause of their arrest and have the right to demand that the governor investigate the basis of the demand. The governor of the asylum state has the discretion to deny an extradition request if it does not meet the statutory requirements or if it is determined to be fundamentally unjust. However, this discretion is generally limited to ensuring procedural compliance and the existence of a lawful basis for the demand, not to adjudicate the guilt or innocence of the accused. The governor’s decision to issue or deny an extradition warrant is a significant administrative act. If the governor of the asylum state believes the demand is insufficient or that the person sought is not substantially charged with a crime, they may refuse to issue the warrant. Conversely, if the demand is in order and the person is properly charged, the governor is generally obligated to issue the warrant. The question asks about the governor’s authority to revoke an extradition warrant *after* it has been issued. While the governor can refuse to issue a warrant in the first instance, the UCEA does not explicitly grant a broad power to revoke an already issued warrant based on a change of mind or a reconsideration of the merits of the demand after the process has commenced. Revocation would typically require a showing of fraud, mistake, or a fundamental defect in the original demand that was not apparent at the time of issuance, or if the person sought has been returned to the demanding state. In the absence of such specific grounds or a statutory provision for post-issuance revocation, the issuance of the warrant signifies the governor’s executive determination that the demand is valid under the UCEA. Therefore, the governor’s ability to revoke an issued warrant is severely restricted and not a routine administrative action.

The scenario involves a fugitive, Anya Sharma, arrested in Washington State based on an arrest warrant issued by Oregon. The core issue is the proper procedure for holding Anya pending the arrival of an Oregon extradition agent, considering Washington’s statutory framework for interstate rendition. Washington’s Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), codified in Revised Code of Washington (RCW) Chapter 10.88, governs these proceedings. RCW 10.88.100 addresses the situation where a person is arrested on an extraditable fugitive warrant. This section specifies that the person arrested shall be committed to the county jail by the arresting officer or magistrate, to remain in custody until the expiration of the time specified in the warrant for surrender, or until the person is discharged by law. The statute does not mandate a specific duration for holding the individual solely based on the warrant itself without further judicial review or a governor’s warrant. However, it is understood that the commitment is to facilitate the extradition process. RCW 10.88.120 provides for the commitment of a person arrested on a governor’s warrant. This is a subsequent step after the governor of the asylum state (Washington) has issued their own warrant. In this case, Anya was arrested on an Oregon warrant, not yet a Washington governor’s warrant. The question asks about the permissible duration of detention *before* the governor of Washington issues a rendition warrant. The initial arrest is based on an out-of-state warrant, and Washington law allows for detention to await the governor’s warrant. RCW 10.88.100 is the most relevant statute for this initial phase. It states the person is committed “to remain in custody until the expiration of the time specified in the warrant for surrender, or until he or she is discharged by law.” The time specified in the warrant for surrender is typically determined by the governor’s warrant, which has not yet been issued. Therefore, the detention is to facilitate the issuance and execution of the governor’s warrant. RCW 10.88.160 is crucial here. It states that if the person arrested on a fugitive warrant is not brought before a judge within a reasonable time for the purpose of determining if they are the person named in the warrant and if they have been substantially charged with a crime in the demanding state, they shall be discharged. However, this discharge does not preclude a new arrest on a proper governor’s warrant. The “reasonable time” is not a fixed numerical period but is context-dependent, often interpreted as sufficient time to allow for the processing of the extradition request and the issuance of a governor’s warrant. Considering the intent of the UCEA and Washington’s implementation, the arrest on the Oregon warrant is a precursor to the formal extradition process, which culminates in the Washington governor’s warrant. The detainee can be held to await this warrant. While there is no absolute statutory maximum for this pre-warrant detention, the arrestee has a right to challenge the legality of their detention if it becomes unreasonable or if the process is unduly delayed without good cause, which could lead to a habeas corpus action. However, the initial commitment under RCW 10.88.100 is to facilitate the process, and the duration is implicitly tied to the reasonable time needed for the demanding state to secure a governor’s warrant and for Washington’s governor to act on it. The question is about the *legal basis* for continued detention, not a specific number of days. The legal basis is to await the governor’s warrant. The statute does not set a fixed period for holding someone on an out-of-state warrant prior to the issuance of a governor’s warrant. The detention is permissible as long as it is reasonable and in furtherance of the extradition process. The question asks for the *maximum permissible duration* of detention under Washington law based solely on an arrest warrant from another state, *prior* to the issuance of a Governor’s warrant by Washington. Washington’s Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (RCW 10.88) outlines the process. RCW 10.88.100 allows for commitment to jail upon arrest on an extraditable fugitive warrant to await surrender. Crucially, RCW 10.88.160 addresses the time limit. It states that if the arrested person is not brought before a judge for examination within a reasonable time, or if the person is not arrested under a Governor’s warrant within a specified period (which is not a fixed number of days but tied to the process), they shall be discharged. However, the arrest itself on the out-of-state warrant is to facilitate the issuance of the Governor’s warrant. The UCEA, as adopted in Washington, does not set a specific numerical day limit for holding someone on an out-of-state warrant *before* the Governor’s warrant is issued. The detention is permissible as long as it is reasonable and in furtherance of the extradition process, meaning it allows sufficient time for the demanding state to request extradition and for the Governor of Washington to issue the rendition warrant. The legal justification for continued detention in this initial phase is to await the Governor’s warrant. The correct answer is that Washington law does not specify a fixed number of days for detention solely on an out-of-state warrant prior to the issuance of a Governor’s warrant, but the detention must be reasonable and in furtherance of the extradition process.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by Washington State, governs the process of extraditing individuals accused or convicted of crimes across state lines. A critical aspect of this act concerns the documentation required for a valid extradition request. Specifically, Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 10.88.240 outlines the necessary supporting documents. For an individual charged with a crime, the demanding state must provide an indictment or an information, accompanied by a copy of the warrant issued upon such indictment or information. Alternatively, if the individual is charged by affidavit, the demanding state must provide a copy of the affidavit and the warrant issued upon it. The affidavit must be sworn to before a magistrate. The explanation of the process focuses on the specific evidentiary requirements for initiating extradition proceedings. The question tests the understanding of what specific documents are legally mandated by Washington’s adoption of the UCEA when a person is sought for a crime based on an affidavit. The correct option reflects the statutory requirement for a sworn affidavit and a warrant issued by a judicial officer in the demanding state.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by Washington State, outlines the procedures for interstate rendition. A key aspect of this act concerns the governor’s role in issuing warrants for persons sought by other states. Under RCW 10.88.250, the governor of Washington, upon receiving a proper demand from the executive authority of another state, must issue a warrant for the arrest of the accused. This warrant is directed to any peace officer of Washington. The UCEA requires that the demand be accompanied by a copy of the indictment, information, or complaint, and a judgment of conviction or sentence, all of which must be authenticated by the executive authority of the demanding state. The process does not inherently require an additional judicial review at the state level prior to the governor’s warrant being issued, although the arrested individual has the right to habeas corpus proceedings to challenge the legality of the detention. The governor’s decision to issue the warrant is based on the sufficiency of the documentation presented by the demanding state, ensuring that the person is substantially charged with a crime in that jurisdiction. The warrant itself is the legal instrument authorizing the apprehension and subsequent transfer of the individual.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by Washington State, governs interstate rendition. A critical aspect is the governor’s warrant. Upon receiving a demand for extradition from an asylum state’s governor, the Washington governor must review the accompanying documents, which typically include an indictment or an affidavit made before a magistrate, charging the accused with a crime committed in the demanding state. The governor also examines proof that the accused was present in the demanding state at the time of the commission of the alleged crime and that the accused is a fugitive from justice. If these requirements are met, the governor issues a warrant for the arrest of the fugitive. The accused, once arrested, has the right to challenge the legality of their detention through a writ of habeas corpus. The scope of review in a habeas corpus proceeding is generally limited to whether the governor’s warrant is regular on its face, whether the person named in the warrant is the person arrested, and whether the person is substantially charged with a crime in the demanding state. The question of guilt or innocence is not before the court in this proceeding. Therefore, the issuance of the governor’s warrant is a ministerial act by the governor, confirming the facial regularity and sufficiency of the extradition documents, rather than an adjudication of guilt.

The scenario describes a situation where an individual, Mr. Aris Thorne, is sought for prosecution in Oregon for a felony offense. Washington State, as the asylum state, is tasked with determining whether to grant extradition. The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by Washington, outlines the procedural requirements for extradition. A critical aspect of this process is the governor’s warrant, which must be based on a formal demand from the executive authority of the demanding state. This demand must be accompanied by specific documentation, including a copy of the indictment found, or an information supported by affidavit, or a complaint made before a magistrate, charging the accused with the commission of the crime. Crucially, the UCEA requires that the indictment or affidavit or complaint must substantially charge the person so demanded with having committed a crime under the law of the demanding state. In this case, the Oregon prosecutor has provided a sworn affidavit detailing the alleged criminal conduct, which directly accuses Mr. Thorne of committing a felony offense under Oregon law. This affidavit serves as the charging document and meets the UCEA’s requirement for substantial accusation. Therefore, the governor of Washington has the legal authority to issue the rendition warrant, and Mr. Thorne can be taken into custody pending the extradition process. The question hinges on the sufficiency of the charging document presented by the demanding state to justify the issuance of a rendition warrant by the asylum state’s governor.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by Washington State, outlines the procedures for interstate rendition. A crucial aspect involves the governor’s warrant. Upon receiving a demand for extradition from another state, the governor of the asylum state (Washington) must review the accompanying documents, which include an affidavit or indictment charging the fugitive with a crime in the demanding state, and a copy of the law under which the charge is laid. If the governor finds these documents substantially charge an offense and that the person sought is substantially charged with the commission of the crime, and has fled from justice, the governor will issue a warrant for the arrest of the fugitive. This warrant is directed to any peace officer in Washington. The UCEA specifies that the person arrested under the governor’s warrant has the right to challenge the legality of their detention through a writ of habeas corpus. However, the scope of review in a habeas corpus proceeding in Washington, when challenging extradition, is generally 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 warrant, and whether the person has fled from justice. It is not a forum to litigate the merits of the underlying criminal charges. Therefore, if the governor of Washington has issued a warrant based on a proper demand from California, and the fugitive is apprehended in Washington, the primary legal avenue for the fugitive to contest the extradition is through a writ of habeas corpus, focusing on the procedural and jurisdictional aspects, not the guilt or innocence of the charges.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by Washington State, governs the process of interstate rendition. A crucial aspect of this act concerns the requirements for an extradition demand. Specifically, for a person charged with a crime in the demanding state, the demand must be accompanied by a copy of an indictment found in the demanding state or by a complaint made before a magistrate there, supported by an affidavit. This complaint, along with the affidavit, must substantially charge the person with committing a crime under the laws of the demanding state. Furthermore, the UCEA mandates that the demanding state must provide a copy of the warrant issued by the magistrate or judge in the demanding state. The core of the legal challenge in this scenario lies in whether the provided documentation from Oregon meets these statutory prerequisites. Washington’s courts interpret these requirements strictly to ensure due process for the individual sought. The absence of a sworn affidavit accompanying the criminal complaint, which is intended to establish probable cause for the issuance of the warrant, renders the Oregon demand deficient under Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 10.88.210. This statute explicitly requires the complaint to be “supported by affidavit.” Without this supporting affidavit, the magistrate in the asylum state (Washington) lacks the necessary basis to determine if probable cause exists for the arrest and rendition, thus making the demand procedurally flawed.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by Washington State, outlines the procedures for interstate rendition of fugitives. A critical aspect involves the governor’s role in issuing a rendition warrant. For a fugitive to be extradited, the demanding state must present evidence demonstrating that the person was present in the demanding state at the time of the commission of the crime, and that the person is a fugitive from justice. Washington Revised Code (RCW) Chapter 10.88, which codifies the UCEA, specifies the documentation required. This includes an indictment, an information supported by a deposition, or a warrant of arrest. The demanding state must also provide an affidavit stating the name of the person sought, the crime charged, and that the person is a fugitive. Upon receipt of these documents, the Washington governor reviews them. If the governor finds the documents are in order and the person is a fugitive, a rendition warrant is issued. The governor’s discretion is not absolute; it is bound by the statutory requirements. The UCEA mandates that the demanding state must prove presence at the time of the offense and fugitive status. The burden is on the demanding state to provide sufficient documentation to satisfy these requirements. The governor’s role is to ensure these legal prerequisites are met before authorizing extradition. Failure to provide the requisite documentation or meet the burden of proof regarding presence and fugitive status would be grounds for denying the extradition request.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by Washington State, governs the process of extraditing individuals accused or convicted of crimes in other states. A key aspect of this process is the requirement for a governor’s warrant to be issued by the demanding state. This warrant must be accompanied by a sworn accusation, which can take the form of an indictment, information, or a criminal complaint, as long as it is properly authenticated. The UCEA also specifies that the person sought must be charged with a crime that is a felony or a misdemeanor under the laws of the demanding state. In this scenario, the governor of Oregon issues a warrant for the arrest of Mr. Kaelen based on a charge of felony theft. The supporting documents include an affidavit sworn to by a district attorney in Oregon, detailing the alleged crime. While an affidavit can support a criminal complaint, the UCEA generally requires that the sworn accusation itself be an indictment, information, or a criminal complaint that is properly certified or authenticated by the executive authority of the demanding state. An affidavit alone, without being part of a formal charging document that has been properly authenticated by the demanding state’s executive authority (in this case, the Governor of Oregon or their designated representative), may not satisfy the strict requirements for extradition under the UCEA. The question hinges on whether the “sworn accusation” is sufficient as presented. Washington’s adoption of the UCEA means it follows these established procedures. The crucial element is the formal charging document and its authentication. An affidavit supporting a complaint is not the same as the authenticated charging document itself. Therefore, the extradition request would likely be denied if the supporting documentation presented to Washington’s governor is solely an affidavit and not a formally authenticated indictment, information, or criminal complaint.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by Washington State, outlines the procedures for interstate rendition. A crucial aspect of this act concerns the governor’s authority to issue an arrest warrant for a fugitive from justice. Specifically, under RCW 10.88.240, the governor of the demanding state must issue a formal demand for the fugitive’s return, accompanied by a copy of the indictment found or an information supported by affidavit, or by a judgment of conviction or a sentence imposed in a trial in a court of record. This demand must be accompanied by a copy of the warrant issued by the accusing magistrate or judge. The demanding governor’s warrant, when received by the governor of the asylum state (Washington in this scenario), serves as the basis for the asylum state’s governor to issue their own warrant for the fugitive’s arrest. The asylum state’s governor must be satisfied that the person is a fugitive from justice and that the demand is in order. The issuance of the governor’s warrant in Washington is a ministerial act, meaning the governor primarily verifies the authenticity of the documents and the legal sufficiency of the demand, rather than re-adjudicating guilt or innocence. Therefore, the primary prerequisite for the Washington governor to issue an arrest warrant for a fugitive sought by another state is the receipt of a formal demand from the demanding state’s governor, properly authenticated and supported by the requisite legal documentation as specified in the UCEA.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by Washington State, governs interstate extradition. A crucial aspect is the requirement for a formal demand from the demanding state, accompanied by specific documentation as outlined in RCW 10.88.250. This documentation typically includes a copy of the indictment, information, or affidavit charging the person with a crime, along with a copy of the warrant issued upon the indictment, information, or affidavit. The demanding state’s executive authority must certify that the person is a fugitive from justice and that the demand is made for the purpose of establishing the person’s guilt or innocence. If the accused is found in Washington and is subject to extradition, the governor of Washington issues a warrant for their arrest. The accused then has the right to challenge the legality of their detention through a writ of habeas corpus, as provided in RCW 10.88.330. This habeas corpus proceeding is limited to determining whether the person is substantially charged with a crime in the demanding state, whether the person is the person named in the extradition warrant, and whether the person is a fugitive from justice. The question focuses on the procedural safeguard available to an individual facing extradition, which is the writ of habeas corpus. The core of this legal challenge is to verify the validity of the extradition process and the underlying charges.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by Washington State, governs the process of extraditing individuals accused or convicted of crimes across state lines. A critical aspect of this act concerns the demand for extradition and the accompanying documentation. Specifically, RCW 10.88.250 outlines the requirements for the charging document. This statute mandates that the demanding state must provide a copy of a judgment of conviction or a sentence imposed in a criminal prosecution. Alternatively, if the person has escaped from confinement or broken the terms of their bail, probation, or parole, the demanding state must provide a copy of an affidavit made before a magistrate in that state, charging the accused person with a crime. The question focuses on the scenario where a person is sought for a crime committed in Oregon and is found in Washington. The Oregon authorities submit a warrant and an affidavit from the arresting officer, detailing the alleged crime. However, the affidavit does not originate from a magistrate and does not accompany a judgment of conviction or a sentence. Under RCW 10.88.250, this documentation is insufficient to support an extradition demand for a person charged with a crime. The statute requires either a judgment of conviction/sentence or an affidavit made before a magistrate. The provided affidavit, even if detailed, does not meet the “before a magistrate” requirement. Therefore, the extradition request would be legally deficient based on the presented documentation.

The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), adopted by Washington State, governs the process of interstate rendition. A key aspect is the requirement for a formal demand from the demanding state, which must be accompanied by specific documentation. According to RCW 10.88.030, the demand must be accompanied by a copy of the indictment, information, or accusation made against the accused, certified as authentic by the governor of the demanding state. Additionally, the demand must include a copy of the judgment of conviction or sentence, if the accused has been convicted and has escaped or fled from justice after having been convicted. The question asks about the necessary documentation when a person has fled after conviction. Therefore, the demand must include a copy of the judgment of conviction or sentence. Other documents, while potentially part of the overall process or supporting evidence, are not the primary requirement for the demand itself in this specific scenario of fleeing after conviction, as stipulated by the UCEA as enacted in Washington. The focus is on the formal demand and its essential components for initiating the extradition process.