House Judiciary Committee hears bill to streamline interstate extraditions, extend holding period

The Vermont House Judiciary Committee on Thursday heard testimony on S.87, a bill that would extend the statutory holding period for persons awaiting interstate extradition and explicitly allow Vermont law enforcement to accept prior written waivers of extradition signed as a condition of release in another state, witnesses told the committee.

Michelle, House Office of Legislative Council, gave an overview of the existing process, describing extradition as “surrendering the custody of a fugitive from one state or country to another,” and tracing the layers of authority that govern it: the U.S. Constitution’s Extradition Clause, a federal statute, and the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act adopted by most states.

The bill would change two main sets of rules, Michelle said. First, it would adjust time limits that currently operate as an initial 30-day holding period plus a possible 60-day extension (90 days total) so the first period would be 90 days with a potential 30-day extension (120 days total). Michelle said the intent is to reduce administrative extensions by front-loading more time. Second, S.87 would allow Vermont to accept a prior, written waiver of extradition — for example, one signed as a condition of bail, parole, or probation in the demanding state — so that, once law enforcement has an authenticated copy of the waiver and identifying documentation, the person could be returned without a separate governor’s warrant and the full governor’s-warrant extradition process.

Jay, a prosecutor and witness who testified in the Senate on the bill, told the committee that the Attorney General’s Office performs a review of extradition packages and that “about 50% of the extraditions that come into Vermont for return have defendants who have already waived extradition as a condition of release in that state.” He described how a signed waiver typically reads (he read the waiver form used in New Hampshire as an example) and said the proposed change is intended to let Vermont law enforcement rely on those waivers rather than requiring a second in-court waiver in Vermont.

Tim McManus of the Department of State, Sheriffs and Corrections, told the committee the bill “addresses a few issues” but does not resolve all logistical questions. He and other witnesses outlined the cross-jurisdiction steps that normally follow an arrest: confirmation of identity, assembly of charges and supporting affidavits, the issuing of an arrest warrant entered in NCIC, a potential governor’s requisition and governor’s warrant, attorney general and governor review, and transport logistics. Tim said the department handled about 50 extradition matters in 2024.

Committee members asked how the “immediately deliver” language in the bill would work in practice. Several witnesses said law enforcement and prosecutors would still need to coordinate with courts and with demanding-state officials to establish a legal basis to hold a person while transport is arranged. Michelle and Tim said the bill’s language allows authenticated electronic transmission of documents but that local practice often relies on paper or sealed governor’s warrants.

Members also raised several edge issues discussed by witnesses: whether juveniles and juvenile-court matters fall under the same process; how and whether time held in Vermont would be credited toward a sentence in another state; and how costs and transport logistics would be handled (witnesses noted that interstate detainer agreements and the demanding state typically cover transport and housing costs). Jay and others also pointed to cases in which a person repeatedly missed hearings in the demanding state and bench warrants accumulated — one example discussed involved a defendant who had waived extradition in a demanding state, fled, was arrested in Vermont, and at one point was held on $25,000 bail while the extradition package was processed.

Several committee members and witnesses recommended a broader review of the state’s Uniform Criminal Extradition Act language, which witnesses described as antiquated and sometimes mismatched with current electronic and interagency practices. No vote was taken during the hearing; additional witnesses were scheduled to testify later in the session.