Court Opinion

ID: 9684719
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 14:09:17.300081+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:59.011536
License: Public Domain

ROBERTS, Judge,
concurring.
It is not enough to say that “we find no prohibition in Michigan v. Doran, supra, [in] the Federal or State Constitutions, or in our law, that would preclude” a determination of probable cause. We must ask as well whether there is a requirement in the law that would impose a duty to make such a determination.
The Fourth Amendment requires, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons ... against unreasonable ... seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing ... the persons ... to be seized.” This is a requirement, inter alia, of “a judicial determination of probable cause as a prerequisite to extended restraint of liberty following arrest.” Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103, 114, 95 S.Ct. 854, 863, 43 L.Ed.2d 54 (1975).
I think that the Fourth Amendment requires a judicial determination of probable cause before a person may be extradited. Therefore, the asylum state may — indeed, must — determine whether a demand for extradition is supported by probable cause. Michigan v. Doran, 439 U.S. 282, 290, 99 S.Ct. 530, 536, 58 L.Ed.2d 521 (1978) (Blackmun, J., concurring). See generally id. at 291-292 n. 2, 99 S.Ct. at 536-537 n. 2 (collecting cases); Annotation, 90 A.L.R.3d 1085 (1979).
The demanding state having failed to make a determination of probable cause,* the courts of this state must enforce the appellant’s Fourth Amendment rights. I join the judgment on that basis.

 Judge Teague’s opinion speaks of “a review of all of the documents to support Indiana’s demand for extradition,” and says that “there is a form on the back of, what is denominated ‘Affidavit for Probable Cause,’ but the blanks on the form have not been filled in .... ” This seems to me to confuse two exhibits. The documents which support Indiana’s demand for extradition (SX-1) have no form on the back of the affidavit. There is an affidavit which has a blank form on its back (Resp. Exh. 3), but it is not part of the documents which support Indiana’s demand for extradition; it was part of a set of documents which the Matagorda County Sheriff’s Department received from the Howard County, Indiana, Sheriff’s Department, and they were sent before any extradition proceedings began. I agree that there is no,evidence of a probable cause determination in the demanding state.