2015 ORS 133.753¹
Form of demand

No demand for the extradition of a person charged with crime in another state shall be recognized by the Governor unless in writing and accompanied by a copy of an indictment found or by an information supported by affidavit in the state having jurisdiction of the crime, or by a copy of an affidavit made before a magistrate there, together with a copy of any warrant which was issued thereupon; or by a copy of a judgment of conviction or of a sentence imposed in execution thereof, together with a statement by the executive authority of the demanding state that the person claimed has escaped from confinement or has broken the terms of security release, probation or parole. The indictment, information, or affidavit made before the magistrate must substantially charge the person demanded with having committed a crime under the law of that state; and the copy of indictment, information, affidavit, judgment of conviction or sentence must be authenticated by the executive authority making the demand. [Formerly 147.030; 1999 c.1051 §246]

See also annota­tions under ORS 147.030 in permanent edi­tion.

Notes of Decisions

Unless a peti­tioner can prove otherwise, the certifica­tion in a requisi­tion for extradi­tion es­tab­lishes the validity of the accompanying affidavits. Ault/Gilbert v. Purcell, 16 Or App 664, 519 P2d 1285 (1974), Sup Ct review denied

Demand under this sec­tion is sufficient if it is accompanied by docu­mentary proof that per­son is duly charged with crime in demanding state and is subject to arrest there or that per­son has been convicted or sen­tenced in demanding state and has escaped confine­ment or violated terms of condi­tional release. State ex rel Groves v. Mason, 33 Or App 63, 575 P2d 679 (1978), Sup Ct review denied; State ex rel Hansen v. Skipper, 137 Or App 315, 904 P2d 1079 (1995)

Since Governors warrant furnished independent basis for accuseds arrest and deten­tion, deten­tion under governors warrant and demand docu­ments which were inconsistent with prior fugitive warrant was not invalid where governors warrant and demand docu­ments were not themselves shown to be invalid. State ex rel Eggleston v. Hatrak, 54 Or App 974, 636 P2d 1017 (1981)

See also annota­tions under ORS chapter 147 in permanent edi­tion.

Notes of Decisions

This Act was adopted to facilitate the interjurisdic­tional transfer of prisoners. Bishop v. Cupp, 7 Or App 349, 490 P2d 524 (1971)

Interjurisdic­tional transfers to clear up charges protect the prisoners constitu­tional right to a speedy trial and the states interest in the orderly ad­min­is­tra­­tion of justice. Bishop v. Cupp, 7 Or App 349, 490 P2d 524 (1971)


1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 133—Arrest and Related Procedures; Search and Seizure; Extradition, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ors133.­html (2015) (last ac­cessed Jul. 16, 2016).
 
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2015, Chapter 133, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano133.­html (2015) (last ac­cessed Jul. 16, 2016).
 
3 OregonLaws.org assembles these lists by analyzing references between Sections. Each listed item refers back to the current Section in its own text. The result reveals relationships in the code that may not have otherwise been apparent.