2.17Interstate Transfer of Juvenile Offenders
Michigan’s Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), MCL 780.1 et seq., “applies to juveniles charged with delinquent behavior in another state.” In re Boynton, 302 Mich App 632, 635-636, 640 (2013) (holding that because MCL 780.2 “indicates . . . applicability . . . to a ‘person’ . . . without distinction premised on age[,]” the trial court properly permitted the 15-year-old respondent’s extradition to the state of Georgia to face accusations of delinquent behavior allegedly committed in that state when he was 12 years old).
Furthermore, “the reason for the absence of [an] individual from the demanding state is irrelevant for purposes of extradition.” In re Boynton, 302 Mich App at 648. Rather, “‘“fugitivity” [under MCL 780.2] is shown when[] . . . [the] defendant is ascertained to be the person wanted in the demanding state and was present in the demanding state at the time the alleged offense occurred.’” In re Boynton, 302 Mich App at 647-648 (quoting In re Simmans, 54 Mich App 112, 116 (1974), and rejecting the juvenile respondent’s contention that he had not “‘fled from justice’ as set forth in MCL 780.2[] . . . [but instead] left Georgia following a brief vacation to return to his home state of Michigan . . . [as] dictated by his mother[]”).1
B.Procedures for Handling Cases Under the Interstate Compact for Juveniles
The Interstate Compact for Juveniles, MCL 3.691 et seq., allows for interstate placement and probation and parole supervision of out-of-state juveniles. All compacting states must comply with the substantive rules (ICJ Rules) issued by the Interstate Commission for Juveniles (ICJ).2 In Michigan, all requests for services in cases involving other states must be made to the Department of Human Services, Bureau of Juvenile Justice, Interstate Compact for Juveniles.
For information on the background of the ICJ, procedures in interstate cases, and liability and immunity considerations for court personnel in interstate cases, consult the following sources:
•ICJ website, available at http://www.juvenilecompact.org/
•ICJ Rules, available at https://www.juvenilecompact.org/legal/rules-step-by-step-table-of-contents
•ICJ Judges’ Toolkit, available at https://www.juvenilecompact.org/legal/toolkit-for-judges
•ICJ’s Bench Book for Judges & Court Personnel, available at https://www.juvenilecompact.org/bench-book
•the ICJ Bench Card on Transfer of Supervision, available at https://www.juvenilecompact.org/sites/default/files/ICJ%20Bench%20Card.pdf
•the ICJ Training Materials, available at https://www.juvenilecompact.org/training/training-materials
1 The In re Boynton Court declined to address the juvenile respondent’s contention that “removal from his family” and “extradition at ‘the tender age of 15’” would constitute cruel and unusual punishment, concluding that this constitutional claim “must be addressed by the courts of the state of Georgia, not the courts of Michigan.” In re Boynton, 302 Mich App at 652, 654-655 (noting that “a detainee awaiting extradition[] has not incurred a punishment under [either] the Eighth Amendment[]” or the Michigan Constitution, Const 1963, art 1, § 16).
2 The ICJ Rules can be accessed at https://www.juvenilecompact.org/legal/rules-step-by-step-table-of-contents.