Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Extradition Hold Periods topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate Judiciary debates S.87 extradition hold period; questions raised about making state an outlier with 90-day upfront hold
Summary
Committee members reviewed S.87, which would change how long a person may be held pending extradition. Attorney-general staff said current law totals 90 days (30 days plus a 60-day extension), and the House draft would allow a 90-day initial hold; members asked staff to check other states' rules and noted a prior 5-0 committee vote.
The Senate Judiciary Committee examined S.87, a proposal to change the initial hold period for people detained pending extradition. Rebecca Turner of the Attorney General's Office described current law and told the committee she found no other state that allows a 90-day upfront hold plus an extra 30-day extension as in the House draft, a factor members said could make the state a comparative outlier.
The change matters because it affects how long defendants may be held before return or transfer, and committee members said it could influence detainee rights, extradition logistics and state compliance with interstate compacts. Members asked staff to compile comparative information from other states before deciding whether to concur with the House language.
Turner said the current statute allows a total of 90 days under the existing framework: "our law total is 90. 30 days right now, 60 days extension allowed." She told the committee she could not find any state that allowed a 90-day upfront hold plus a 30-day extension, and noted that some states start with 30 days and allow extensions so the total reaches 90.
Members debated whether raising the initial hold to 90 days (with further extension in the House draft) would be justified. One member noted that in some states a 30-day upfront limit resulted in quick releases and immediate rearrests, which can create practical problems for enforcement and extradition. Another member urged caution before making the state a ‘‘major outlier’’ without comparative data from peer states.
Committee business included a reference to a prior committee vote on the time periods. One committee member said, "we voted that out 5 0," and members described having earlier agreed to the 90-day framework before receiving additional testimony prompting more review. Several members asked staff (Michelle and Rebecca) to pull comparative examples of other states' time limits and the uniform-extradition framework.
The committee agreed to revisit S.87 at its next meeting after staff supply the comparative data and any pertinent reports the sentencing commission or compact administrators provided.
Ending: Committee members asked staff to gather and circulate a state-by-state comparison of initial hold periods and extension practices under the Uniform Extradition Act and related compacts, and to return S.87 for further committee consideration.
