An offender who absconds from a receiving state is a fugitive from justice. The procedures for returning a fugitive to a demanding state can be affected by the Uniform Extradition and Rendition Act (UERA). Under that act, a fugitive may waive all procedural rights incidental to the extradition, for example the issuance of a Governor’s warrant, and consent to return to the state demanding the fugitive. To be valid, the waiver must be in writing, in the presence of a judge, and after the judge has informed the fugitive of his rights under the statute. Nothing in the UERA prevents a person from voluntarily returning to a state. Several courts have recognized that an interstate Compact governing supervision of out-of-state offenders provides an alternative procedure by which a person can be returned to the demanding state without complying with the formalities of the UERA. See In re Klock, 133 Cal App 3d 726 (Cal. Ct. App. 1982); People v. Bynul, 524 N.Y.S.2d 321 (N.Y. Crim. Ct. 1987).  See also, Todd v. Florida Parole and Probation Commission, 410 So.2d 584 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982) (“[W]hen a person is paroled to another state pursuant to an interstate Compact, all requirements to obtain extradition are waived.”) An interstate Compact has been held to displace the UERA as to certain offenders and requires only minimal formalities as to the return of those offenders. Id. Furthermore, the offender’s agreement to waive extradition as a condition of relocating waives the need for formal extradition proceedings at the request of the sending state for the offender’s return.