This comment is completely correct. This rule would apply here.

Okay I think current precedent is consistent with your view; thank you for providing an opportunity to learn more about the extradition clause. Constructive presence is not currently considered in the context of the extradition clause.

Morally I am in complete agreement with you. I just think the US law is a lot more nuanced.

I have dug into this issue in a bit more depth and I think California has more of a ground to stand on than I originally thought. See the edit to my top level comment.

That is exactly my argument.

By not coming to your arraignment. Edit: this is a potential legal argument a state could make if they try to overturn Hyatt v People in a Supreme Court case.

I am by no means a Trump supporter but I believe what’s good for the goose is good for the gander; Trump was never present in Georgia leading up to the electoral count as far as I am aware, yet he is charged with RICO under state law in Georgia. Do you think he could have simply fought rendition to Georgia?

Sure.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-4/section-2/clause-2/overview-of-the-extradition-interstate-rendition-clause

Article IV, Section 2, Clause 2:

A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.

Now arguably one can say that a California person did not flee but that argument has not been explored from what I can gather. Generally rendition seems to be granted given an indictment in another state.

In 18 U.S.C. § 3182 (which enables interstate extradition): Whenever the executive authority of any State or Territory demands any person as a fugitive from justice, of the executive authority of any State, District, or Territory to which such person has fled, and produces a copy of an indictment found or an affidavit made before a magistrate of any State or Territory, charging the person demanded with having committed treason, felony, or other crime, certified as authentic by the governor or chief magistrate of the State or Territory from whence the person so charged has fled, the executive authority of the State, District, or Territory to which such person has fled shall cause him to be arrested and secured, and notify the executive authority making such demand, or the agent of such authority appointed to receive the fugitive, and shall cause the fugitive to be delivered to such agent when he shall appear. …

Overall it seems to me that a person charged in another state will be extradited as one could interpret residing in California as “fleeing” say Texas’s jurisdiction.

Edit: see my edit on my top level comment. I’ve dug into this issue in a bit more depth and it feels like this is less of a clear cut issue than I initially thought. Thank you everyone for pointing out the flaws in my logic.

While this is great postering; this is a law that will undoubtedly be ignored due to the rendition clause of the US Constitution.

Edit: after looking into this some more there is an argument that if someone has conclusively never been in the requesting during the offense, another state cannot request rendition, see Hyatt v People (1903). It was reaffirmed in Michigan v. Doran (1978).

Based on precedent there has to be no evidence whatsoever that a person was present in the state. It cannot be a question of fact or alibi for the crime itself. Ie., if a state asserts the person was present in the state and the person asserts they were not as an alibi defense, the person would still need to be extradited and can assert the alibi defense in their trial.

I think based on this reading my initial take was wrong, but I am not so sure how true this is with some more modern enactments like the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act.

Here is a law review article that discusses related issues in more depth: https://academicworks.cuny.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1558&context=clr#:~:text=Without intervention%2C anti-abortion states,the people that support them.

Was about to post this. There is a fact check here: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2022/04/26/fact-check-false-claim-male-and-female-watermelons/7366708001/ No such thing as male or female watermelons.

Do you know how this will affect existing installations? Is this gnome only or any desktop?