Senate Judiciary reviews S.87 changes to recognize pre-signed extradition waivers and alter detention timelines

The Senate Judiciary Committee on May 14 examined S.87, a bill that would let Vermont law enforcement or courts treat previously signed out-of-state waivers of extradition as valid under defined conditions and would change how long a person may be held while a governor's warrant is sought.

Committee members heard competing approaches: the version passed by the Senate would permit delivery to a demanding state without a governor's warrant when officials have an authenticated pre-signed waiver plus identifying evidence; the House amendment would preserve a court review and presume a properly authenticated out‑of‑state waiver valid unless the defendant proves otherwise.

Michelle Child, of the Office of Legislative Council, summarized the textual difference: “the only language that is different really is that you have [the] senate version has a subsection c, and then, the house version has…subdivision 2 that recognizes that if there was a previously authenticated signed waiver of extradition, then that waiver is to be presumed valid.” Child said the House approach keeps a court hearing in the process while the Senate approach can allow law enforcement to effect the return without the governor's warrant when three statutory conditions are met, including authenticated identification evidence.

Kevin (department of schools, attorney and insurance) told the committee the department supports the House change. “We are fine with this,” he said, describing it as streamlining the cases that already have a pre‑signed waiver and shortening steps that now occur in court. He added that “27 of the other states have adopted this process,” a point discussed and later questioned by other witnesses.

Bob Davis, Assistant Attorney General, said the Attorney General's Office would “go along with the judiciary and state’s attorneys” if the committee favored the House approach: “if the judiciary…doesn’t have concerns with this additional judicial process…and if the state's attorneys are comfortable with it, we don't object to the house version.”

Rebecca Turner, from the Defender General's Office, urged caution. She flagged due‑process and Fourth Amendment concerns tied to recognizing foreign waivers executed under differing circumstances, and stressed courts must be able to test whether a waiver was knowing and intelligent when it was signed. “Every waiver that is waiving certain rights, your due process rights, has to be separately established to have been done knowing and intelligent at the time it was waived,” Turner told the committee, warning that without a court process challenges could be “fraught” and likely to produce litigation.

Jay Pershing Johnson, counsel who testified for the governor’s public safety package, argued the change addresses administrative burden and would not eliminate the governor's warrant as a fallback: “If this committee did nothing, we would still have the governor's warrant,” he said, and described the proposal as aligning Vermont’s practice with other states that accept out‑of‑state waivers in prescribed form.

Judge Zones, Chief Superior Judge, explained judicial discretion under the House approach. He noted the statute’s new timing language is phrased as a maximum and that judges retain authority to set shorter periods: “I don't view that as saying that if you come in and the court immediately says 90, the judge could say, well, you give me a 30. And then we'll come back and we can revisit it.”

Several witnesses and committee members spent substantial time on timing: current practice generally operates on a 30‑day initial period with a common 60‑day extension; the bill changes phrasings and would in some drafts front‑load longer initial detention windows (discussed as 90 days in different formulations). Rebecca Turner and others said most U.S. states use a 30/60 structure and raised concerns about increasing the period a person can be held without the usual in‑person judicial waiver process. Committee discussion repeatedly returned to whether extending or front‑loading detention time would meaningfully speed returns or instead increase the liberty cost to defendants.

No motion or vote was taken. Committee members agreed they needed more information on how frequently presigned waivers arise in practice, the forms states use for authentication, the empirical number of days cases take, and whether other jurisdictions have experienced appellate challenges to similar statutory presumptions. Multiple members said they preferred preserving a judicial role at arraignment to reduce the risk of error if an officer or agency were to effect a return based solely on paperwork.

The committee did not adopt a formal direction on the bill during the hearing. Staff said the topic would be revisited at a later meeting with additional materials and follow‑up from departments and counsel.