18 U.S.C. § 3182
Fugitives from State or Territory to State, District, or Territory
Whenever the executive authority of any State or Territory demands any person as a fugitive from justice, of the executive authority of any State, District, or Territory to which such person has fled, and produces a copy of an indictment found or an affidavit made before a magistrate of any State or Territory, charging the person demanded with having committed treason, felony, or other crime, certified as authentic by the governor or chief magistrate of the State or Territory from whence the person so charged has fled, the executive authority of the State, District, or Territory to which such person has fled shall cause him to be arrested and secured, and notify the executive authority making such demand, or the agent of such authority appointed to receive the fugitive, and shall cause the fugitive to be delivered to such agent when he shall appear. If no such agent appears within thirty days from the time of the arrest, the prisoner may be discharged.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 338
cases (22 in the last 5 years), 1949–2025 · leading case: Michigan v. Doran, 439 U.S. 282 (1978).
Michigan v. Doran, 439 U.S. 282 (1978). “any State or Territory, charging the person demanded with having committed treason, felony, or other crime, certified as authentic by the governor or chief magistrate of the State or Territory from whence the person so charged has fled, the executive authority of the State,…”
Puerto Rico v. Branstad, 483 U.S. 219 (1987). “On February 15, 1984, petitioner Commonwealth of Puerto Rico filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa against respondents Governor *223 Branstad and the State of Iowa, [1] seeking a declaration that failure to deliver Calder upon…”
Major Harden v. George E. Pataki, 320 F.3d 1289 (11th Cir. 2003). “In his complaint, Harden alleges that he was denied the right to a preextradition habeas corpus hearing, the right to be turned over to government agents, not a private extradition company, and the right to have a Governor’s warrant issued for his arrest.”
Jacobsen v. State, 577 P.2d 24 (Idaho 1978). “Such is sufficient to establish fugitive status under the extradition clause of the federal constitution, article IV, § 2, clause 2, and 18 U.S.C. § 3182 (1970). Roberts v. Reilly, supra .”
California v. Superior Court of Cal., San Bernardino Cty., 482 U.S. 400 (1987). “2, and the Extradition Act, 18 U. S. C. § 3182 , prevent the California Supreme Court from refusing to permit extradition on these grounds.”
Jose Munoz Santos v. Linda Thomas, 830 F.3d 987 (9th Cir. 2016). “In our view, this ends the inquiry into the issue of whether or not a crime is charged for purposes of the Extradition Act [ 18 U.S.C. § 3182 ].”)). 74 MUNOZ SANTOS V.”
Cuyler v. Adams, 449 U.S. 433 (1981). “At the same time, Congress implicitly reaffirmed its consent to the Agreement. [10] Congressional power to legislate in this area is derived from both the Commerce Clause and the Extradition Clause.”
Clark v. Comm'r of Corr., 917 A.2d 1 (Conn. 2007). “544 (1885); Congress passed legislation, now codified at 18 U.S.C. § 3182 , 18 setting *393 forth the procedure by which an executive authority of one state shall surrender a fugitive from justice to the executive authority of another state.”
Harold E. Sivard, Jr. v. Pulaski Cnty., Pulaski Cnty. Sheriff's Dep't, Charlotte Ward-Tillett, Individually & in Her Off. Capacity, 17 F.3d 185 (7th Cir. 1994). “To implement the Clause, Congress enacted the Extradition Act of 1793, 18 U.S.C. § 3182 , which requires the State which is demanding a fugitive from another State to produce a copy of the indictment or an affidavit certified as authentic by the governor or chief magistrate of…”
Aycox v. Lytle, 196 F.3d 1174 (10th Cir. 1999). “This provision is implemented through 18 U.S.C. § 3182 , which permits the executive authority in a state from which a fugitive has fled (the “requesting” state) to make a demand on the executive authority of the state to which he has fled (the “detaining” state) for arrest and…”
Wilbanks v. State, 579 P.2d 132 (Kan. 1978). “"From all these considerations the court draws the conclusion that the terms of 18 U.S.C. § 3182 are not met unless the affidavit indicates to the asylum state executive that there is probable cause for believing the accused guilty and that habeas corpus is the appropriate…”
Donald Gee v. State of Kansas, 912 F.2d 414 (10th Cir. 1990). “Summary and mandatory interstate extradition is envisioned by the Constitution, which provides that: a person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority of the…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.