486 A.2d 664 | Conn. Super. Ct. | 1984
The plaintiff brings this habeas corpus proceeding challenging his confinement in the Hartford Community Correction Center. The plaintiff was arrested on the order of Connecticut Governor William A. O'Neill, who acted pursuant to an extradition requisition of California Governor George Deukmeiain.
The papers supporting the requisition include: application for requisition to the California governor, signed by a deputy district attorney; complaint, executed *180 under penalty of perjury, by a police sergeant on June 22, 1984; arrest warrant signed by a judge of the California Municipal Court on June 25, 1984; and affidavit sworn to by the same police sergeant on June 26, 1984, the day after the arrest warrant was signed.
The Connecticut statute establishing the requirements for recognizing extradition demands is §
The Connecticut Supreme Court, in Wentworth v.Bourbeau,
The authoritative case on extradition is Michigan v.Doran,
In the case before this court the arrest warrant, signed by the California judge, made no finding of probable cause that the plaintiff here committed the offenses listed in the warrant. California Penal Code §
The issue before this court is whether §
A number of state courts have held that a finding of probable cause is "implicit" in a judge's issuing a warrant pursuant to a probable cause statutory requirement.People ex rel. Coster v. Andrews,
Other courts, however, have held that a judicial finding of probable cause is necessary to support arrest and rendition of an extradition request. Zambito v.Blair,
This court agrees with the conclusions of these latter cases. While Michigan v. Doran pointed out that the purpose of the extradition clause of the United States constitution is to secure the prompt rendition of interstate fugitives with a minimum of friction between the states, it still based the "presumption of regularity" upon "the demanding state's judicial determination" of probable cause. Justice Blackmun, in his concurring opinion, makes it explicit that "[i]t is enough if the papers submitted by the demanding State in support of its request for extradition facially show that a neutral magistrate had made a finding of probable cause." Michigan v. Doran, supra, 297 (Blackmun, J., concurring).
When the liberty of a person is being infringed upon when he is forcibly removed from one state to another, a judicial finding of probable cause is demanded. Inferences from the issuance of a warrant, under a statute requiring that a judge be satisfied as to probable cause, are not sufficient. A judge should explicitly make the finding, not only to assure that he has focused on that requirement, but also so that the asylum state will know that the finding has been affirmatively made.
On the basis of the foregoing, this court will stay issuance of a writ of habeas corpus for thirty days to allow California to present to this court a judicial finding that the plaintiff committed the offenses stated in the warrant. If within thirty days from date hereof such a judicial finding is presented, this court will deny the writ; otherwise it will be issued.