- Extradition Clause
The Extradition clause or Interstate renditon clausecite book | last = Heritage Foundation (Washington, D.C.) | title = The Heritage Guide to the Constitution | publisher = Regnery Publishing | date = 2005 | pages = 273 | location = Edwin Meese, III | isbn = 1-5969-8001-X] refers to a provision in Article IV, , , provides for the extradition of a criminal back to the state where he or she has committed a crime.
Text
Article IV, Section 2, Clause 2:
History
Similar to a clause found in the Articles of Confederation, the extradition clause was included because the founders found that interstate rendition was separate from international extradition. Fearing that it was not self-executing, Congress passed the first rendition act in 1793 – now found under 18 U.S.C. § 3182.
Interpretation
"Kentucky v. Dennison"
The meaning of the extradition clause was first really tested in the case of "
Kentucky v. Dennison ". The case involved a man namedWillis Lago who was wanted inKentucky for helping a slave girl escape. He had fled to Ohio, where the governor,William Dennison , refused to extradite him back to Kentucky. In this case, the court ruled that, while it was the duty of a governor to return a fugitive to the state where the crime was committed, a governor could not be compelled through awrit of mandamus to do so."Puerto Rico v. Branstad"
In 1987, the court reversed its decision under Dennison. The case involved an Iowan, Ronald Calder who struck a married couple near
Aguadilla, Puerto Rico . The husband survived but the wife, who was eight months pregnant, did not. Following the incident, Calder was charged with murder and let out on bail. While on bail, Ronald Calder fled to his home-state ofIowa . In May 1981, theGovernor of Puerto Rico submitted a request to theGovernor of Iowa for extradition of Ronald Calder to face murder charges. The Governor of Iowa refused the request, forcing the Governor of Puerto Rico to file a writ of mandamus in theUnited States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa . The Court rejected it, ruling that under "Kentucky v. Dennison", the Governor of Iowa was not obligated to return Calder. TheUnited States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed. The Supreme Court felt differently, ruling unanimously that the Federal Courts did indeed have the power to enforce a writ of mandamus and that "Kentucky v. Dennison" was outdated.External links
* [http://www.usconstitution.net/constpop.html List of popular names of sections and clauses of the US Constitution]
References
Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.