## Facts

- In the summer of 1995, Indigenous protests occurred across Canada concerning alleged interference with Indigenous land rights; observers later linked these protests to Canada’s 1996 withdrawal of certain controversial policies.
- As part of those protests, James Pitawanakwat, an Indigenous Canadian man, joined others in occupying land at Gustafsen Lake (Lake Gustafson) in British Columbia that protesters viewed as historic tribal land.
- The occupation ended in a violent armed confrontation between the protesters and Canadian law enforcement.
- Canadian authorities arrested, prosecuted, and imprisoned Pitawanakwat for conduct connected to the standoff, including weapons-related conduct described in the record as involving gunfire directed at or near a police helicopter during the confrontation.
- After his release on parole, Pitawanakwat left Canada and moved to the United States, allegedly violating the conditions of his Canadian parole.
- Canada requested Pitawanakwat’s extradition so he could be returned to Canada to answer for the parole violation and related consequences under Canadian law.
- The United States, acting on Canada’s request, filed an extradition complaint in the District of Oregon under 18 U.S.C. § 3184 and the U.S.–Canada extradition treaty.
- Pitawanakwat opposed certification, arguing that the treaty’s political-offense exception applied because the alleged conduct was incidental to a violent political disturbance tied to Indigenous land-rights claims.

## Issues

1. Whether the offenses for which Canada sought Pitawanakwat’s return fell within the U.S.–Canada treaty’s political-offense exception because they were incidental to and connected with a violent political disturbance (the Gustafsen Lake confrontation).
2. Whether the Gustafsen Lake standoff qualified, for treaty purposes, as a violent political disturbance rather than ordinary criminal activity.
3. Whether Pitawanakwat’s charged or proved conduct had a sufficient connection to the political objectives of the disturbance to be treated as a relative political offense.

## Decision

- The court declined to certify Pitawanakwat as extraditable.
- The court treated the Gustafsen Lake events as a politically charged confrontation connected to Indigenous protests over land and government treatment.
- The court concluded the conduct at issue, though violent, was part of that broader political conflict and fit within the treaty’s political-offense exception.
- Because the treaty barred extradition for political offenses, the court denied the government’s request for extradition certification.

## Legal Principles

- An extradition court proceeding under 18 U.S.C. § 3184 is limited to determining whether a valid treaty applies, the charged conduct is covered by the treaty, and treaty-based exceptions bar certification.
- The U.S.–Canada extradition treaty contains a political-offense exception that precludes extradition when the offense is “of a political character.”
- U.S. courts distinguish “pure” political offenses (direct offenses against the state, such as treason) from “relative” political offenses (common crimes committed in connection with a violent political disturbance).
- For a relative political offense, the court considers whether (a) a violent political disturbance existed and (b) the charged acts were incidental to and connected with that disturbance, rather than being private violence unrelated to political aims.
- Violent conduct can still qualify as political under the treaty when it occurs in the course of, and in relation to, an organized conflict with governmental forces connected to political objectives identified by the record.

## Conclusion

United States v. Pitawanakwat is an extradition certification decision in which the District of Oregon held that Canada’s request was barred by the U.S.–Canada treaty’s political-offense exception, because the alleged weapons-related conduct arose from and was connected to the Gustafsen Lake confrontation—an armed political disturbance linked to Indigenous protests over land rights and the Canadian government’s treatment of Indigenous peoples.


United States v. Pitawanakwat, 120 F. Supp. 2d 921 (2000)