387
BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
The Federal statutes also. contemplate that when an extradition appll­
..c ation is receiyed from a demanding stl;lte that the alleged fugitivefroDl jus­
tice shall be ~iltitled to a hearing before the Governor of the asylum state
before the 'requisition is finally honored.'
In cases where nO' fugitive from justice warrants. bave been issued prior
. to, the receipt of the extradition papers the Governor can issue a warrant
or proclamation for the arrest of' the alleged fugitive and when such an
alleged fugitive is arrested under such process the -Governor should be im­
mediately notified in order that the accused may have a hearing if he desires
one but after. the accused has had a hearing or opportunity' for one .has
passed and the Governor has issued a removal warrant, authorizing the agent
of the demanding state to remove the prisoner from this jurisdiction, any
sheriff in this State into whose hands re1lloval warrant shan come is not
only authorized to, but required to, forthwith hand the prisoner over to the
, agent of the demanding state without furtber notice to the Governor and the
agent. of . tbe demandi'ng' state is authorized' to. immediately rernovesuch
pr'iso.p.er' from tbis state on such remdval warrant.
. .Yoti will uliderslandthat. there is a distinction between a removal
warrant issued by the Governor, ,'autborizing tbe removal of persons from
this State and a mere warrant issued by the Governor under Section 6182
of the Revi~ed General Statutes for the apprehension of the alleged fugitive.
There is
limitation as to the time within which a warrant' of appre­
hension issued under SeCtion 6182 can be executed. In fact, it seems to'
remain in force until executed, however long that may be. When execut­
ing such' warrant, the Governor should be immediately notified after' the
person is apprehended, as I have stated above, as a warrant issued under
Section 6182 is not a removal warrant.
Trusting .this
answers your inquiry of November 19th in more detail, I am,
.
Very truly yours,
FRED H. DAVIS, Attorney GEilleral.
no
,
SHERIFF'S FEES FOR DESTROYING LIQUOR
December
7,.19~7,
Dear Sir:
This will acknowledge the receipt. of your favor of the 3rd inst., inquiring
jf sheriffs are allowed a fee of $~,OO for destroying liquor.
'
The last sentence of Section 5483, Revised General Statutes of Florida,
reads as follows:
That for the performance of the duties required of the sheriff
by the provisions o! this section, or the provisions of Sections 5481
and 5482, he shall receive the same fees provided by law for the
.arrest and return of persons cp.arged with crime, including the same
mileage and the actual cost of transporting such things, and for each
seizure made by him' or his deputy, 'When the same at'e ordered 'de~
8M'oyed or sold by the Oircurtt Judge, he shall receive an additional
fee Of five dollars, and all such fees and compensations shall be paid
out of tl1e fine and forfeiture fund of the county, as costs are paid
upon the conviction of an insolvent person.
It will be noted, however, that you would only be entitled to receive the
j
I
~
388
4
BIENNIAL REPORT Ol-' rrHEArrTORNEY GENERAL
1
~,5.00.fee
for destructioIlOf liquor seized when liquor is de8troyed under {)rd.ers . of tlH~ Circuit Judge. Trusting this answers your inquiry of. the 3rd inst., 1 am, Cordially ;\'ours,
ROY -CAMPBELlJ, Assistant Attorney General.
j
I
; 0.
":::1
f~
SlU~UIYIl'S-DCTIE8. AS TO CASH BONDS
f
December 12, 1927.
De(w Sir:
rildel' Section (l087, Re\"ised General Stuttltes, sheriffs taldllg cash bail uOllds are required to cleposit the same in some bank to the credit
the officer as trustee for the State and defendant. This section further provides that if the bond shall be estreate.d the mOIley shall 11e immediately paid into the, county treasury according to the condition of the said bond or returned to the defendant, i~ he shall coml)ly \vith the conditions Of such bond. It is,therefore, the duty of a sheriff _to pay such cash bond into the county treasury after it has been ordered estreated and no liability for the Ir!oney or any valt thereof attaches to the sheriff after he has turned such money into the county treasury. However, as the statute says if the defend­ ant complies v;rith the condition of the bond the money must be repaid to him out of the county treasury by action of the County Oommissioners. In tliis conn.ecUon, you will note that an "estreature" of a bond is not a "forfeiture" of a bond. An estreature is a mere record by the Court of the fact that the defendant has failed to comply with the terms of the bond, based upon which a forfeiture may later be had. '.rhe Judge of the Court, in setting aside an estreature of a cash bond, has
. the right to order that the amount of the bond, which has been paid into the
county ,treasury, be refunded to tl)e defendant. However, if the .sheriffno
longer has the money but has tUrned it into the ('ounty treasury after the
estreature of the bond the sheriff is under no obligation to return the money,
tbat being the duty of the Oounty Conllnissioners, who have contl'ol of funds
in the county treasury. After a defendant is convicted and sentenced to pay
fine and costs, in default of which he is ordered to serve a term in jail, the
sheriff is required to tal{e eharge of the defendant and keep him in C1Jstody
.. until the fine and costs are paid, after procuring}l proper commitment from
the Oourt, authorizing and directing him to carry out the Court's judgment.
The Supreme Court has held that after imposing sentence, the judge has no further control over the execution' of the sentence, that heing a matter entirely up to the executive department of the State. See Tanner vs. Wiggins, M 1<'lorida 203. 45 Southern 459. If a defendant in a criminal case had to pay a cash bond, which has been estreated and the money paid into the eounty treasury, and desires to use such bond money to pay his fine and costs he should make application to the County CommiSSioners for the retul'n of the cash liond to him because of the r(>vocation of esU'eature and should himself pay to the sheriff the amount of his fine and costs. The sheriff is uncler no obligaUOll to go out and hunt up sources from which the defendant may pay his fine and eosts. Trusting this answers your letter of December 10th, which you will understand is not an offfcial opinion on a matter of this kind as this office of