Background
Louisiana sought to extradite Airon Bennett from Oregon to face charges of indecent behavior with a juvenile and computer-aided solicitation of a minor. The supporting affidavit alleged that Bennett, using the name “Scott,” exchanged sexually explicit Snapchat messages with a 15-year-old girl in Louisiana. The parties stipulated that Bennett was in Oregon when the alleged conduct occurred.
Bennett petitioned for habeas corpus, arguing that he was not a fugitive from Louisiana and could be extradited only under Oregon’s non-fugitive extradition statute, ORS 133.767. He contended that Louisiana’s documents were facially deficient because they did not allege that he intended his Oregon conduct to result in a crime in Louisiana. The trial court denied his counseled and pro se petitions, and Bennett appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Oregon Court of Appeals held that ORS 133.767 permits non-fugitive extradition only when the accused is charged with committing an act outside the demanding state while intending that the act result in a crime there. That allegation must appear on the face of the demanding state’s extradition documents.
Louisiana’s requisition and accompanying documents contained no allegation that Bennett intended his conduct to result in a crime in Louisiana. The omission was not merely inartful pleading, and the required language in Oregon’s governor’s warrant could not cure the defect because facial validity depends on the demanding state’s documents. The court reversed and remanded with instructions to discharge Bennett from confinement resulting from his arrest under the extradition warrant.
Key Takeaways
- Non-fugitive extradition under ORS 133.767 requires an allegation that the accused intended an out-of-state act to result in a crime in the demanding state.
- The demanding state’s extradition documents must contain the required allegation on their face; substantial similarity or “close enough” pleading is insufficient.
- An asylum state governor’s warrant cannot cure a missing allegation in the demanding state’s requisition and supporting documents.
Why It Matters
The decision requires strict compliance with the UCEA’s documentary prerequisites when a state seeks to extradite someone who was never present there during the alleged crime. Although extradition is a summary administrative process that does not test guilt or innocence, the demanding state must still establish facially that the person falls within the governing statutory pathway.
For practitioners, the opinion highlights the importance of identifying whether extradition is proceeding under the fugitive or non-fugitive provision and examining the demanding state’s documents—not merely the governor’s warrant—for every required allegation.