Opinion ID: 1285295
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Propriety of extradition.

Text: Petitioner's argument appears to be the following: the governor has discretion in deciding whether to extradite a prisoner; [4] both Minnesota and Iowa are members of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers, [5] which provides for prompt disposition of outstanding charges against incarcerated prisoners; therefore extradition may not be used to have an incarcerated prisoner delivered from one state to another to face a charge in the demanding state. This reasoning not only fails logically, but is against the weight of case law which holds that an extradition proceeding is a proper method for bringing a prisoner incarcerated in one state to trial in another. [6] Petitioner cites only one case to support his contention, Wertheimer v. State, 294 Minn. 293, 201 N.W.2d 383 (1972), but Wertheimer does not support petitioner's argument. That case involved a challenge to the Interstate Agreement on Detainers on the ground that proceedings thereunder denied prisoners equal protection of the law under the Fourteenth Amendment. This court held that use of detainer proceedings against prisoners did not deprive them of equal protection, despite the fact that the prisoner's rights to challenge the detainer proceedings were more limited than they would have been in extradition proceedings. [7] Thus petitioner is in the anomalous position of claiming that he is entitled to be subject to a proceeding for delivery to Iowa which would provide him with fewer or less complete procedural safeguards than he was, in fact, afforded. The reason for this contention is apparent when petitioner's second claim is examined. If petitioner is mentally ill, then the state of Iowa could not have him returned by a proceeding under the Interstate Agreement on Detainers. [8]