Lawyers representing Ryan Wedding are gearing up to contest the manner in which the former Olympic snowboarder was detained, as reported to the Daily Mail. Wedding, who competed for Canada in the 2002 Winter Olympics, has been accused of masterminding a billion-dollar drug trafficking ring and orchestrating multiple homicides.

Dubbed a ‘modern-day Pablo Escobar,’ Wedding was on the FBI’s list of the top 10 most-wanted criminals until he was recently extradited to the United States to confront 17 felony charges, including murder.

In court, Wedding entered a plea of not guilty. His defense team is now preparing to scrutinize the ‘legitimacy of Mr. Wedding’s arrest and the circumstances of his capture,’ potentially paving the way for the charges to be dropped.

The events leading to Wedding’s capture remain shrouded in ambiguity, with differing narratives from U.S. and Mexican officials about how he was taken into custody.

Some authorities, including the U.S. ambassador to Mexico, have suggested that the arrest stemmed from a ‘voluntary surrender.’

A number of figures, including the US ambassador to Mexico, have claimed that it was as a result of ‘voluntary surrender.’    

Attorneys for Ryan Wedding are plotting to challenge the ‘legality’ of his mysterious detention 

Wedding represented Canada during the Winter Olympics in 2002 but he did not win a medal

Kash Patel said the FBI’s Hostage Rescue Team ‘executed with precision, discipline, and total professionalism alongside our Mexican partners to bring Ryan James Wedding back to face justice’ 

Mexico’s President Claudia Sheinbaum, meanwhile, previously said: ‘What they, the US authorities, told the Mexican authorities is that it was a voluntary surrender.’

But on the day of Wedding’s arrest, FBI director Kash Patel claimed on social media that the bureau’s Hostage Rescue Team – who recently captured Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro – ‘executed with precision, discipline, and total professionalism alongside our Mexican partners to bring Ryan James Wedding back to face justice.’ 

Wedding’s lawyer, Anthony Colombo, also insisted outside court: ‘He was arrested, he didn’t surrender.’ He later told the Wall Street Journal it was FBI agents who handcuffed Wedding.

‘If the United States is unilaterally going into a sovereign country and apprehending somebody, you can understand the concern that sovereign entity might have,’ Colombo added outside court. 

Earlier this week, the WSJ reported that the FBI’s role was supposed to be a secret, given Mexican law bans foreign agents from ‘being physically present in law-enforcement operations on its soil and taking part in detentions or raids.’

Foreign agents, the law states, ‘are prohibited from carrying out or inducing third parties to carry out arrests [or] actions aimed at depriving individuals of their liberty.’

And, in a statement to the Daily Mail, Colombo said: ‘With enforcement actions against [Nicolas] Maduro and my client, Mr. Wedding, the Trump Administration has shown a bold new willingness to pursue fugitives beyond our borders.’

The ex-Olympic snowboarder pleaded not guilty to 17 felony charges, including murder

Anthony Colombo previously insisted that his client was ‘arrested’ and did not ‘surrender’

But, Colombo added, ‘bold action does not suspend due process, and the legality of Mr. Wedding’s arrest and the circumstances surrounding his apprehension will be subject to judicial review before the District Court.’

Criminal law expert Rocco Cipparone told the Daily Mail that this sort of challenge is not uncommon and Wedding’s legal team will argue that if the arrest violated law – even in Mexico – the charges should be dismissed or the California court lacks jurisdiction.

But, according to Cipparone, history and precedent suggest that Wedding would face an uphill challenge to convince the court to rule against the government.

Bobby Taghavi, managing partner at Sweet James, agreed. ‘If there were facts suggesting US agents physically conducted a detention in Mexico contrary to Mexican law… it could complicate diplomacy and create litigation friction,’ he told the Daily Mail. 

‘[But] US courts generally don’t dismiss a case just because the defendant claims the arrest abroad violated foreign law. The typical result is: the criminal case proceeds, and litigation shifts to a) what exactly happened, and b) whether any statements/evidence should be suppressed.’

The former Olympic snowboarder is due back in court on February 11 ahead of a trial which is initially slated to begin in March.