Panel backs bill to speed interstate extraditions by recognizing presigned waivers and extending hold period

A legislative committee on Wednesday discussed S.87, a bill the governor’s office proposed to amend Vermont’s extradition rules to speed the interstate return of people accused or convicted elsewhere.

Provisions in the bill would lengthen the time a person can be held while extradition paperwork proceeds from 30 days to 120 days and would allow law enforcement to deliver a person to a demanding state without a governor’s warrant if an authenticated, presigned waiver of extradition applies (for example, as a condition of probation, parole or bail).

Why it matters: Supporters said the change would reduce administrative burdens on prosecutors, sheriffs and courts and shorten the time fugitives remain in custody while agencies in different states exchange paperwork. Opponents and some legislators asked for safeguards about honoring out-of-state laws that Vermont does not criminalize.

Michelle Childs of the Office of Legislative Council opened the committee discussion by noting the statutory framework is old and sometimes “archaic,” and she described three layers that govern extradition: the U.S. Constitution’s Extradition Clause, a federal implementing statute, and the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act adopted by most states.

Kim McMullis of the Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs said her office handled 50 extradition cases in 2024 and supports the bill’s proposed changes. “By moving it from 30 to 120 days, that makes a couple of good sense from our perspective,” McMullis said, adding that the department defers to the governor’s and attorney general’s offices on any potential conflicts with interstate compacts.

An attorney from the attorney general’s office (Taj) and Assistant Attorney General Sophie Stratton told the committee the bill would codify the practice of accepting presigned waivers that many demanding states gather when defendants are released on conditions. The AG’s office framed the proposal as an efficiency measure: when a fugitive is arrested in Vermont, law enforcement now must assemble a bundle of documents (NCIC entries, affidavits, charging documents, identity materials) and a states’ attorney must file a fugitive complaint and petition the court. If the defendant refuses to waive extradition, the process requires a governor’s requisition and warrant before transfer. The AG’s office said recognizing authenticated presigned waivers would often allow a direct return without the full formal requisition route.

Sophie Stratton said recognizing waivers would reduce short-term burdens on local law enforcement because officers would not have to prepare full fugitive petitions when an authenticated waiver is present; instead an agency could lodge the person and await the demanding state’s certified documents.

Both the state prosecutors and the AG’s office recommended a technical edit to the bill to explicitly include the Department of Corrections (DOC) in the language so corrections officials can accept lodgings, verify presigned waivers and confirm identity statewide. The AG’s office said adding DOC would promote uniform statewide practice rather than relying piecemeal on local jails.

Jay Pershing Johnson, counsel to the governor, emphasized the U.S. Constitution’s extradition clause is mandatory and said the statute’s purpose is prompt return of offenders to the jurisdiction where the offence occurred. Johnson read the text of a typical presigned waiver used by a demanding state and noted such waivers commonly state the person “voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently waive[s] my rights to formal extradition proceedings” and “consent[s] to return voluntarily and without hearing or other formality.”

Committee members asked whether Vermont would be required to honor demands for conduct that is not a crime in Vermont (one hypothetical raised was a demand by Texas for abortion-related conduct that is not illegal in Vermont). Members also sought clarification about what constitutes an “authenticated” waiver; witnesses said the bill contemplates a certified, stamped copy from a court or clerk rather than an unverified electronic copy.

The committee heard a recent case timeline to illustrate delays under current practice: an individual convicted in New Hampshire was arrested in Vermont in December; New Hampshire’s governor’s requisition reached Vermont in mid-February and the AG’s office review returned late February — about three months elapsed between arrest and transfer under the present process. Witnesses said such delays can keep defendants in Vermont custody on substantial bail while the interstate paperwork proceeds.

No formal vote was recorded during the hearing. Witnesses from the governor’s office, the attorney general’s office, and the state prosecutors’ office expressed support for S.87 as drafted but recommended the DOC inclusion and encouraged care about carve-outs or limits to avoid returning individuals for out-of-state laws Vermont has chosen not to criminalize.

The committee indicated it will continue consideration of the bill and accept technical edits from staff and the administration before moving to a vote.