Arrest and Related Procedures

ORS 133.753
Form of demand


No demand for the extradition of a person charged with crime in another state shall be recognized by the Governor unless in writing and accompanied by a copy of an indictment found or by an information supported by affidavit in the state having jurisdiction of the crime, or by a copy of an affidavit made before a magistrate there, together with a copy of any warrant which was issued thereupon; or by a copy of a judgment of conviction or of a sentence imposed in execution thereof, together with a statement by the executive authority of the demanding state that the person claimed has escaped from confinement or has broken the terms of security release, probation or parole. The indictment, information, or affidavit made before the magistrate must substantially charge the person demanded with having committed a crime under the law of that state; and the copy of indictment, information, affidavit, judgment of conviction or sentence must be authenticated by the executive authority making the demand. [Formerly 147.030; 1999 c.1051 §246]

See also annotations under ORS 147.030 in permanent edition.

Notes of Decisions

Unless a petitioner can prove otherwise, the certification in a requisition for extradition establishes the validity of the accompanying affidavits. Ault/Gilbert v. Purcell, 16 Or App 664, 519 P2d 1285 (1974), Sup Ct review denied

Demand under this section is sufficient if it is accompanied by documentary proof that person is duly charged with "crime" in demanding state and is subject to arrest there or that person has been convicted or sentenced in demanding state and has escaped confinement or violated terms of conditional release. State ex rel Groves v. Mason, 33 Or App 63, 575 P2d 679 (1978), Sup Ct review denied; State ex rel Hansen v. Skipper, 137 Or App 315, 904 P2d 1079 (1995)

Since Governor's warrant furnished independent basis for accused's arrest and detention, detention under governor's warrant and demand documents which were inconsistent with prior fugitive warrant was not invalid where governor's warrant and demand documents were not themselves shown to be invalid. State ex rel Eggleston v. Hatrak, 54 Or App 974, 636 P2d 1017 (1981)

§§ 133.743 to 133.857

See also annotations under ORS chapter 147 in permanent edition.

Notes of Decisions

This Act was adopted to facilitate the interjurisdictional transfer of prisoners. Bishop v. Cupp, 7 Or App 349, 490 P2d 524 (1971)

Interjurisdictional transfers to clear up charges protect the prisoner's constitutional right to a speedy trial and the state's interest in the orderly administration of justice. Bishop v. Cupp, 7 Or App 349, 490 P2d 524 (1971)


Source

Last accessed
Jun. 26, 2021