Rcw Interstate Agreement On Detainers

The IAD is an intergovernmental pact, sanctioned by Congress, which aims to promote the rapid and orderly organization of criminal prosecutions in party states.  RCW 9,100.010, Art.   I;  Carchman v. Nash, 473 U.S. 716, 719, 105 S.C. 3401, 87 L.Ed.2d 516 (1985).   Washington State codified the IAD in 1967 in chapter 9,100 RCW. Article III of OSCI states that when a person has entered „a prison sentence“ in a prison or prison and there are unproven charges in another state and another state has laid a detainee against the prisoner, the detainee is „brought to justice within one hundred and ninety days“ after being presented to the public prosecutor`s office or court in the other written communication of the State concerning her place of detention and a written request for charge.  RCW 9,100.010, Art.   III (a).  Montie Welker, a.k/a Montie Welver, was living in Multnomah County, Oregon, when he was charged with first-degree burglary and first burglar in Washington.   He argues that his conviction for break and enter must be set aside because he was not tried in time.   The Intergovernmental Agreement on Detainees (IAD) provides for a legal system that requires IAD signatories, including Washington and Oregon, to settle non-state and detainee charges within 180 days on charges, information or complaints.

 RCW 9,100.010.   Welker asserts that a prosecutor has a duty of good faith and diligence to use the IAD by dedicting an inmate against an incarcerated accused if the prosecutor knows who the accused is responsible for.   Welker also argues that the prosecutor did not comply with this obligation and that the Crown`s failure led to prejudice against Welker. 6. Indeed, the courts do not agree on whether the IAD applies to inmates.   Compare z.B. Escalanti v. Superior Court, 165 Ariz. 385, 387, 799 P.2d 5 (1990) (1990), with z.B.

206, 210, 772 p.2d 1291 (1989) (IAD) does not apply). The state has not introduced legislation in Oregon that says an inmate who is placed on an inmate is not honored, but relies on a 2003 letter from the Oregon governor`s lawyer, which states Oregon`s reluctance to honor IAD inmates who are placed on inmates.   In return, the letter does not refer to Oregon`s legal authority, but indicates that the position of the Board of Governors was informed by a manual of the National Association of Official Extraditions (NAEO) and interviews with IAEA lawyers.   The IAEA manual acknowledges that this is an unresolved legal issue.   Cp at 43, 62-63. The Court of Appeal found Blackmun J.`s dissent in Fex to be more persuasive than the majority opinion. Morris, 299. See Fex, 113 pt. at 1091-94 (Blackmun, J., dissenting). In adopting the dissenting view, the Court of Appeal noted that the analysis of the IAD in Fex was persuasive but uncontrollable in interpreting the status of D.C.`s intrastate inmates, formulated in the same way. Morris, 299.

See also Hoffer v. State, 113 Wn.2d 148, 151, 776 P.2d 963 (1989) (it is well established that the construction of a similarly worded federal statute by the Supreme Court, while often persuasive, does not control the interpretation of a state statute by that court). The Tribunal justified this decision by the fact that its interpretation of the statute met the clear meaning of the words and favoured the purpose of the statute. Morris, 297.