Extradition

Writ of Habeas Corpus

Michigan v. Doran, 439 U.S. 282, 289, 99 S. Ct. 530, 534–535, 58 L. Ed. 2d 521 (1978); California v. Superior Court of California, San Bernardino County, 482 U.S. 400, 107 S. Ct. 2433, 96 L. Ed. 2d 332 (1987))

Under PC1550.1: "If the accused or his counsel desires to test the legality of the arrest, the magistrate shall remand the accused to custody, and fix a reasonable time to be allowed him within which to apply for a writ of habeas corpus."

According to CEB book, section 50.38, "If the fugitive wishes to challenge extradition by way of habeas corpus, the court must allow a 'reasonable time' within which to file the petition, and the actual surrender of the fugitive to the demanding state's agents must be stayed during that period. People v. Superior Court (Lopez) 1982) 130 Cal.App. 33d 776, 786. Typically, California courts allow about 10 days within which to file the petition. The fugitive must remain in custody during the period the habeas corpus attack on the Governor's warrant is pending. Pen Code 1550.1"

Also, under PC1550.1, "the person named in the warrant shall be held in custody at all times, and shall not be eligible for release on bail."

"Once the governor has granted extradition, a court considering release on habeas corpus can do no more than decide (a) whether the extradition documents on their face are in order; (b) whether the petitioner has been charged with a crime in the demanding state; (c) whether the petitioner is the person named in the request for extradition; and (d) whether the petitioner is a fugitive." (Michigan v. Doran (1978) 439 U.S. 282, 289.)

Michigan v. Doran is a detailed explanation of the United States Constitution, Article IV, section 2, the Extradition Clause, which mandates that states extradite.

California courts have quoted Michigan v. Doran in deciding habeas corpus on extradition cases in California. (People v. Superior Court (Lopez)) (1982) 130 Cal.App.3d 776, 783.)

Penal Code 1553.2 makes it clear: "The guilt or innocence of the accused as to the crime with which he is charged may not be inquired into by the Governor or in any proceeding after the demand for extradition accompanied by the charge of crime in legal form as above provided has been presented to the Governor, except as such inquiry may be involved in identifying the person held as the person charged with the crime."

A factual inquiry cannot be done. (California v. Superior Court (Smolin) (1987) 482 U.S. 400.)

Defenses cannot be raised. (Pacileo v. Walker (1980) 440 U.S. 86.)

Under the federal Violence Against Women Act, 18 USC 2265, family orders from out-of-state have full faith and credit across all states. California formally adopts the Full Faith and Credit provisions in California Family Code 6402. An ex parte order/TRO in which the respondent has not yet had an opportunity to respond could not be subject to Full Faith and Credit for the lack of notice and due process. In any case, these all seems to be issues better addressed on habeas corpus.