Keefer v. Leach

Supreme Court of Colorado

Keefer v. Leach

597 P.2d 203, 198 Colo. 101, 1979 Colo. LEXIS 690

CourtSupreme Court of Colorado

DecidedJune 25, 1979

Docket28492

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 597 P.2d 203 (Keefer v. Leach) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Colorado primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Keefer v. Leach, 597 P.2d 203, 198 Colo. 101, 1979 Colo. LEXIS 690 (Colo. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

MR. JUSTICE GROVES

delivered the opinion of the Court.

Petitioner was arrested in Colorado and held for extradition to Illinois. He filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus alleging that the extradition documents did not establish probable cause that he had committed a crime in Illinois, and that the documents were not certified properly. After a hearing, the district court discharged the writ. We affirm.

The documents submitted include a complaint, an arrest warrant, affidavits and certifications of judges’ and clerks’ authority. Petitioner claims the documents do not establish probable cause because the arrest warrant does not show that the judge issuing the warrant made a determination of probable cause.

Illinois courts may issue an arrest warrant only if the complaint shows that probable cause exists to believe the proposed arrestee has committed the crime in question. People v. Waitts, 36 Ill. 2d 467, 224 N.E.2d 257 (1967); Ill. Ann. Stat. ch. 38, section 107-9(c). When a state’s law requires a judge to find probable cause before issuing a warrant, the presence of the warrant in the requisition documents establishes probable cause for the purposes of section 16-19-104, C.R.S. 1973. Moore v. Miller. 198 Colo. 24, 596 P.2d 64 (1979); Christopher v. Cronin. 193 Colo. 218, 564 P.2d 424 (1977); Michigan v. Doran. 439 U.S. 282, 99 S.Ct. 530, 58 L.Ed.2d 521 (1978).

Petitioner also argues that the certification of the extradition documents is defective because there is no authorization included to show that the chief deputy clerk could sign for the clerk of the court.

However, the Illinois governor’s authentication covers all the documents including the affidavits of probable cause and the arrest warrant. Absent some showing that the documents are spurious, the governor’s general authentication establishes their validity. Hall v. Cronin, 196 Colo. 333, 585 P.2d 286 (1978); Lyle v. Kieback, 139 Colo. 149, 337 P.2d 392 (1959).

*103 We affirm the district court’s order discharging the writ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MR. JUSTICE GROVES

delivered the opinion of the Court.

Petitioner was arrested in Colorado and held for extradition to Illinois. He filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus alleging that the extradition documents did not establish probable cause that he had committed a crime in Illinois, and that the documents were not certified properly. After a hearing, the district court discharged the writ. We affirm.

The documents submitted include a complaint, an arrest warrant, affidavits and certifications of judges’ and clerks’ authority. Petitioner claims the documents do not establish probable cause because the arrest warrant does not show that the judge issuing the warrant made a determination of probable cause.

Illinois courts may issue an arrest warrant only if the complaint shows that probable cause exists to believe the proposed arrestee has committed the crime in question. People v. Waitts, 36 Ill. 2d 467, 224 N.E.2d 257 (1967); Ill. Ann. Stat. ch. 38, section 107-9(c). When a state’s law requires a judge to find probable cause before issuing a warrant, the presence of the warrant in the requisition documents establishes probable cause for the purposes of section 16-19-104, C.R.S. 1973. Moore v. Miller. 198 Colo. 24, 596 P.2d 64 (1979); Christopher v. Cronin. 193 Colo. 218, 564 P.2d 424 (1977); Michigan v. Doran. 439 U.S. 282, 99 S.Ct. 530, 58 L.Ed.2d 521 (1978).

Petitioner also argues that the certification of the extradition documents is defective because there is no authorization included to show that the chief deputy clerk could sign for the clerk of the court.

However, the Illinois governor’s authentication covers all the documents including the affidavits of probable cause and the arrest warrant. Absent some showing that the documents are spurious, the governor’s general authentication establishes their validity. Hall v. Cronin, 196 Colo. 333, 585 P.2d 286 (1978); Lyle v. Kieback, 139 Colo. 149, 337 P.2d 392 (1959).

*103 We affirm the district court’s order discharging the writ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

597 P.2d 203, 198 Colo. 101, 1979 Colo. LEXIS 690, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/keefer-v-leach-colo-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack