Question about extradition.

[sMoOtHcRiMiNaL]

my boyfriend was arrested sept 4. he would have been ror'd but a hold from another state prevented that. he was finally scheduled an extradition hearing on the 30th of sept- where he was told by the judge that the wanting state has 14 days (10 business days) to pick him up. but the judge also scheduled a hearing exactly one week after those 14 days would be up.

My question is: if the wanting state fails to pick him up in the alloted time- can they legally pick him up in the following week while he waits for the hearing to release him?

 

[OHRoadwarrior]

They can legally pick him up, until the warrant is cancelled.

 

[sMoOtHcRiMiNaL]

Then why did the judge say- They have 14 days to pick you up. If not, you are released.
Why not just say- we schedule another hearing- if the wanting state does not pick you up in that time, you are free to go.

 

[OHRoadwarrior]

That is how long the state that issued the warrant has until the state you are in releases him. The next time he gets in trouble, they will discover the warrant and hold him for pickup again. The only way to stop it is for him to go to the state issuing the warrant and deal with it.

 

[sMoOtHcRiMiNaL]

No, I totally understand that.
Maybe I worded my original question wrong.

I understand that if the state doesn't pick him up- and he's stopped on let's say- a minor traffic charge- the incident would talk place over and over until he turns himself in for the warrant.


What I'm asking is this:

The state said they have until the 14th of this month to pick him up. Okay. Great. Let the count down begin.
But the state scheduled a hearing for the 21st. Which I'm assuming, they would release him after that.

But why give the hearing for 7 days later? And in that 7 days, if the other state could still take him- then why bother saying the have until the 14th- why not just say they have until the 21st then?

 

[Isis1]

what is the name of your state?

in your case, what are the names of the states involved?

 

[sMoOtHcRiMiNaL]

Right- there's two states involved in extradition.

 

[OHRoadwarrior]

Chances are, state law only allows a 2 week hold, however, by not having docket time available, he is giving a third week to the retention. They will not refuse to turn him over, if the other state comes to get him during the last week.

 

[sMoOtHcRiMiNaL]

Which just seems obsurd to have laws reguarding a time frame then- because they were aware he was locked up for 21 days before they even gave him an extradition hearing.
I read somewhere that according to the interstate compact they only have 30 days from the time of the initial arrest. But well, that's obviously not true either.

 

[OHRoadwarrior]

The bottom line is they hold them long enough for them to lose their job and possibly their home. It is a good incentive to deal with the original warrant.

 

[sMoOtHcRiMiNaL]

I'm sorry- but that to me makes no sense to me.

 

[OHRoadwarrior]

I'm sorry- but that to me makes no sense to me.

It punishes a wanted fugitive for not facing the crime he is charged with, by penalizing him each time he has a brush with the law.

 

[sMoOtHcRiMiNaL]

Right- there are laws. And to say a jail can legally hold someone for as long as they want- more so until they lose their job and house- is not lawful.


I wasnt saying that extradition makes no sense. just your comment.

 

[OHRoadwarrior]

No one said the law could hold them as long as they want. Yes, it is lawful. Many would argue it is also just. The criminal gets re-punished, for avoiding a crimes punishment, each time they brush the law on another issue.

 

[sMoOtHcRiMiNaL]

I'm not arguing that extradition isn't just.

My point is: Is why set certain laws, if they aren't going to be followed anyway?

Don't say that LEGALLY a state has 14 days to pick you up, if you give them 21 days.