How Courts Authorize Interstate Arrests and Extradition

12th Jan 2026
How Courts Authorize Interstate Arrests and Extradition To most people, the act of living and working in a different state creates a perceived shield against the immediate reach of local law enforcement. Under the constitutional framework of the United States and the specific statutes governing interstate cooperation, legal authority allows for the forceful detention and transport of individuals across state lines when a warrant is active. That principle is now drawing significant attention following the arrest of Michael David McKee in Illinois in connection with an Ohio homicide investigation. The decision to execute these warrants and initiate extradition does not determine guilt, liability, intent, or the final outcome of the case. What You Need to Know Interstate criminal procedure is governed by the Extradition Clause of the U.S. Constitution and the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act. Once a procedural trigger such as the filing of a criminal complaint and the issuance of a warrant—occurs, certain jurisdictional barriers are removed to allow for apprehension. Personal preference, professional status, or reputational concern generally does not control the release or transfer of the individual in custody. What the Law Does Not Protect Interstate Residency: Living in a different state does not grant immunity or require a higher burden of proof for an initial arrest than if the suspect lived next door. Professional Credentials: Holding a medical license or a position of public trust does not stay the execution of a criminal warrant. Privacy of Travel: Courts generally hold that there is no expectation of privacy in the movement of vehicles on public roads or in registration data used to link individuals to specific locations. The Mechanics of Interstate Sovereignty The American legal system is built on a foundation of "dual sovereignty," where each state has its own laws and its own power to punish crimes. However, to prevent the country from becoming a patchwork of safe havens, the law provides a bridge between these jurisdictions. How the Process Begins The process begins in the jurisdiction where the alleged crime occurred—in this instance, Ohio. Law enforcement presents evidence to a judge or magistrate to establish probable cause. If the judge agrees that there is a reasonable basis to believe a crime was committed and the named individual committed it, a warrant is issued. At this stage, the process is largely invisible to the public and the suspect. Who Controls It Once the warrant is issued, it is entered into the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) database. This is a centralized digital warehouse controlled by the FBI but fed by local and state agencies. Legally, this means that any officer in any state—be it Illinois, Nevada, or California—who runs a background check or encounters the individual during a routine matter will see the active warrant. The control then shifts to the "asylum state" (where the person is found) to physically secure the individual. When Discretion Applies In practice, the court in the state where the arrest occurs has very limited discretion. They are not tasked with weighing the evidence of the murder or the strength of the prosecution's case. Instead, their discretion is limited to verifying the identity of the person in custody and ensuring the paperwork from the demanding state is technically sound. If the documents are in order, the court is constitutionally required to facilitate the transfer. Where Limits Exist The primary limit on this power is the right to a "Habeas Corpus" hearing. A suspect can challenge their detention if they can prove they are not the person named in the warrant or if the warrant is facially invalid. However, they cannot use an extradition hearing in Illinois to argue their innocence regarding an Ohio crime. Why Interstate Arrest Authority Matters And What It Does Not Decide Interstate arrest and extradition procedures exist to prevent geographic relocation from becoming a barrier to legal accountability, not to determine guilt or outcome. Once a warrant is issued, courts are constitutionally required to prioritize jurisdictional coordination over personal convenience, professional status, or reputational concerns. This often creates the perception of unfairness, as individuals may be detained and transferred far from their homes before any trial occurs. Legally, however, these actions are viewed as logistical safeguards designed to place the accused in the correct courtroom, not as a judgment on culpability. The practical consequence is strategic: the defense must navigate a multi-front process, managing detention and transfer in one state while preparing for substantive proceedings in another. Importantly, extradition hearings do not provide a forum to argue innocence, and every individual remains presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty in the demanding jurisdiction. What This Means for Everyone Else This legal structure has implications that ripple far beyond high-profile criminal cases: For Employers: It serves as a reminder that professional excellence and licensing (such as a medical degree) are separate from legal accountability. Businesses must often navigate the sudden absence of key staff due to legal proceedings that began years prior or in different regions. For Litigants: It highlights the importance of addressing legal "loose ends." A divorce finalized in one state, for instance, remains a matter of public record that can be revisited by investigators looking for context or motive in unrelated matters. For the Public: It demonstrates the power of the "digital trail." From vehicle registrations to medical licensing boards, the information that allows us to function in modern society also provides the roadmap for law enforcement to execute interstate warrants. FAQ / PAA Can a state refuse to send a suspect back? Under the U.S. Constitution, states are generally required to honor the extradition requests of other states. While a Governor could theoretically delay the process, they cannot legally refuse it if the demanding state has provided the proper documentation and proof of identity. Why can this happen years after a divorce or move? Statutes of limitations for serious crimes like murder often do not exist, meaning law enforcement can file charges and seek an arrest decades after an event. The timeline of a past marriage or a move to a new state does not expire the state's power to prosecute. Does this mean they’re in trouble with their medical board? Not necessarily immediately, but most professional boards have "reporting requirements." If a licensed professional is charged with a felony, the board will typically open its own administrative investigation, which could lead to a license suspension regardless of the criminal trial's outcome. Why can this happen at all without a trial first? The purpose of an arrest is to ensure the person is present for the trial. If the law required a trial before an arrest, suspects would have the opportunity to move or conceal themselves, making the enforcement of justice nearly impossible. Can this really be made public before a conviction? Yes. In the United States, the arrest and the charges are considered public acts of the government. This transparency is intended to hold the police and the courts accountable, though it often results in intense public scrutiny for the individual involved before any evidence is presented in court.