U.S.A. v. Lucero-Echegoyen

U.S.A. v. Lucero-Echegoyen

Adjournment dismissed because existing authority (Wakeling and Graham) and statutory provisions (Privacy Act s.8(2)(a),(b) and Identification of Criminals Act s.2(3)) demonstrate that fingerprints and photographs lawfully obtained in Canada may be shared with foreign law enforcement without resolving the proposed constitutional challenge; therefore notice under the Constitutional Question Act and an adjournment are unnecessary.

Citation
2011 BCSC 1028
Parties
Person Sought: Everg Adonay Lucero-Echegoyen aka Elmer; Requesting State: Attorney General of Canada on behalf of the United States of America
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
3 June 2011
Procedural Posture
Extradition / Adjournment Application During Extradition Hearing
Outcome
Adjournment application dismissed
Legal Topics
Constitutional Validity of Statutes, Privacy Act S.8(2)(f), Identification of Criminals Act S.2(3), Charter Ss.7 and 8, Disclosure of Evidence, Adjournment Motions
Source Language
English
Constitutional Law Privacy Law Extradition Law Criminal Law Constitutional Validity of Statutes Privacy Act S.8(2)(f) Identification of Criminals Act S.2(3) Charter Ss.7 and 8 +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Everg Adonay Lucero-Echegoyen aka Elmer

Person Sought

Attorney General of Canada on behalf of the United States of America

Requesting State

Procedural Posture

Extradition / Adjournment Application During Extradition Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether s.8(2)(f) of the Privacy Act is unconstitutionally vague or overbroad
  2. 2 Whether the fingerprints and photographs were lawfully disclosed to foreign authorities and whether Crown must rely on s.8(2)(f)
  3. 3 Whether an adjournment is required to give notice under the Constitutional Question Act

Ratio Decidendi

Adjournment dismissed because existing authority (Wakeling and Graham) and statutory provisions (Privacy Act s.8(2)(a),(b) and Identification of Criminals Act s.2(3)) demonstrate that fingerprints and photographs lawfully obtained in Canada may be shared with foreign law enforcement without resolving the proposed constitutional challenge; therefore notice under the Constitutional Question Act and an adjournment are unnecessary.

Court Disposition

Adjournment application dismissed

Orders

  • Application for adjournment to give notice under the Constitutional Question Act is dismissed