Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 197.0

524US1

Unit: $U80

[09-06-00 20:24:32] PAGES PGT: OPIN

152

NEW MEXICO ex rel. ORTIZ v. REED

Per Curiam

a writ of habeas corpus from the New Mexico State District
Court. He claimed he was not a “fugitive” for purposes of
extradition because he ﬂed under duress, believing that Ohio
authorities intended to revoke his parole without due process
and to cause him physical harm if he were returned to an
In January 1995, the New Mexico trial court
Ohio prison.
ruled in favor of respondent and directed his release from
custody. The State appealed this order, and in September
1997 the Supreme Court of New Mexico afﬁrmed the grant
of habeas corpus.
124 N. M. 129, 947 P. 2d 86 (1997). The
State has petitioned for certiorari from that decision.

Article IV of the United States Constitution provides that:

“A person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or
other Crime, who shall ﬂee from Justice, and be found
in another State, shall on Demand of the executive Au-
thority of the State from which he ﬂed, be delivered up,
to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the
Crime.” Art. IV, § 2, cl. 2.

The Extradition Act, 18 U. S. C. § 3182, provides the proce-
dures by which this constitutional command is carried out.

In Michigan v. Doran, 439 U. S. 282 (1978), we said:

“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 re-
quest for extradition; and (d) whether the petitioner is
a fugitive. These are historic facts readily veriﬁable.”
Id., at 289.

The Supreme Court of New Mexico agreed that the ﬁrst
three requirements had been met, but decided that respond-
ent was not a “fugitive” from justice; in the words of the
Supreme Court of New Mexico, he was a “refugee from injus-
124 N. M, at 146, 947 P. 2d, at 103. That court held
tice.”