House Judiciary Committee debates S.87 to honor out-of-state extradition waivers, extend holding period

The House Judiciary Committee on April 2 examined S.87, a bill from the governor’s office that would allow Vermont to recognize pre-signed extradition waivers executed in other states and would lengthen the statutory maximum period someone may be held under extradition-related authority from 90 days to 120 days.

Committee members heard from Assistant Attorney General Tom Alos and Sophie Stratton of the Vermont Attorney General’s Office, and from Rebecca Turner of the Defender General’s Office. Supporters said the change would reduce paperwork and the time required to return people to demanding states; defenders and the committee pressed for clearer safeguards, judicial review points and data about how long transfers actually take.

Tom Alos, assistant attorney general, summarized current practice and why the bill is proposed. He described the existing process: when a person wanted by another state is arrested in Vermont, law enforcement confirms the out-of-state warrant in the National Crime Information Center (NCIC), Vermont prosecutors file a fugitive petition in a Vermont court, and the case proceeds to arraignment and (if the person does not waive extradition in court) a requisition that goes through the demanding state’s prosecutor and governor before Vermont issues a governor’s warrant. Alos said that process “consumes time and resources” and that many out-of-state defendants already have waivers on file in the demanding state as a condition of release, probation or parole.

Alos and Sophie Stratton, the Attorney General’s Office’s extradition official, explained that S.87 would permit Vermont law enforcement or corrections officials to rely on authenticated pre-signed waivers from the demanding state to expedite delivery, rather than proceeding through the full formal extradition court process in Vermont. Alos described the proposed timing changes in the bill: the initial statutory period would be increased (described in committee discussion as changing the initial 60-day window to 90 days) and the extension mechanics would be adjusted so that the total allowable holding time under the statute would be 120 days (up from the current 90 days).

Stratton said Vermont currently routinely relies on fingerprints, NCIC checks and LiveScan fingerprint technology to confirm identity and that corrections and law enforcement already have processes to verify documentation, and that many other states either have statutes or case law that recognize pre-signed waivers. She and Alos said the Attorney General’s Office and governor’s office can often process requisitions quickly once complete documentation arrives, but that delays commonly originate with the demanding state’s internal processes.

Rebecca Turner, head of the appellate division at the Defender General’s Office, said the proposal raises due-process and oversight concerns. Turner noted that Vermont’s 90-day statutory limit dates to a uniform standard referenced by the Vermont Supreme Court and that any extension needs justification and clarity about what happens after the statutory period ends. She emphasized misidentification and errors can happen, and pointed to the limited remedies available to a detained person who wishes to contest custody—principally habeas corpus filings in civil court—which in practice may be difficult for an unrepresented person to pursue quickly. Turner asked the committee to consider statutory guardrails such as an early judicial check (for example, a prompt review if a person has not been collected by the demanding state within a short, defined timeframe) and to require explicit assignment of which Vermont agency (for example, the Department of Corrections) is authorized to hold a person while documents are verified.

Witnesses and legislators discussed practical numbers and outcomes described by the AGO: Alos and Stratton estimated that many fugitives are released on bail in Vermont (Alos estimated about three-quarters are granted bail after arraignment) and that roughly one-quarter of those released later have active arrest warrants in their Vermont fugitive case when a requisition request ultimately arrives. The witnesses reported that the AGO often receives requisition requests within a few days of contacting the demanding state once the paperwork is complete, but that the time from arraignment to receipt of a complete requisition from the demanding state commonly runs into weeks and sometimes months—hence the stated need for more time in the statute to avoid repeated dismissals or re-arrests while waiting.

Committee members asked for comparative data on other states’ timeframes and for input from the Vermont Department of Corrections and local law enforcement on who should authenticate waivers and how long a holding period would be reasonable before a judicial review is required. The committee’s chair said staff would request additional language from the governor’s office, the AGO and the Defender General’s Office and bring back witnesses and proposed statutory text at a future hearing.

The committee did not take a vote on S.87 during this session; members instructed stakeholders to meet offline and return with draft language addressing authentication, agency authority to hold, and possible interim judicial review points.

The committee scheduled further discussion and indicated it expects new language and DOC input when it reconvenes on this item.