VAIL, Colo. — American skier Lindsey Vonn says she nearly lost her left leg following a frightening crash in the women’s downhill at the Milan Cortina Olympics.

Vonn shared in an Instagram post on Monday that her injuries went far beyond the complex tibia fracture in the leg she initially revealed after clipping a gate and sailing off course just 13 seconds into her run on Feb. 8.

The 41-year-old skier from Burnsville said the trauma from the crash led to compartment syndrome in the leg. Compartment syndrome involves excessive pressure building up inside a muscle, either from bleeding or swelling. High pressure restricts blood flow and can lead to permanent injury if not treated quickly.

“When you have so much trauma to one area of your body, so that there’s too much blood and it gets stuck ,,, it basically crushes everything,” Vonn said.

Vonn credited Dr. Tom Hackett, an orthopedic surgeon who works for Vonn and Team USA, for conducting a fasciotomy to salvage her leg.

“He filleted it open (and) let it breathe, and he saved me,” she said.

Vonn noted that Hackett was only in Cortina because she was competing after tearing the ACL in her left knee shortly before the Olympics.

“If I hadn’t had done that, Tom wouldn’t have been there (and he) wouldn’t have been able to save my leg,” she said.

Vonn, who said she has been discharged from the hospital, also broke her right ankle in the crash.

“It has been quite the journey, and by far the most extreme and painful and challenging injury I’ve ever faced in my entire life times 100,” she said.

Vonn underwent multiple surgeries during a week-long stay at a hospital in Treviso, Italy, following the accident. She credited both Hackett and Italian doctors for their efforts to repair her leg, which she said was “in pieces” following the accident.

She says she struggled with pain and blood loss in the immediate aftermath and had to receive a transfusion to help raise her hemoglobin levels.

Vonn, who said she is “very much immobile,” is in a wheelchair at the moment but has turned her attention to her rehab and is working her way toward being able to use crutches. She estimated it will take about a year for the bones in her left leg to heal. Only after that will doctors be able to go in and repair the torn ACL, which played no role in the crash.

“It’s going to be a long road,” she said. “I always fight, and we keep going.”

Vonn stressed she had “no regrets” about her comeback following a six-year retirement or her decision to ski at the Olympics despite the knee injury.

“I wish it had ended differently, but I’d rather go down swinging than not try at all,” said Vonn, who was atop the World Cup series rankings in the downhill when she arrived in Cortina. “I think what I was able to achieve was more than anyone expected to begin with. … This year was incredible, and so worth everything.”

She likened her injuries to “one blip on the radar.” She did not go into any sort of detail about her competitive career, though her father, Alan Kildow, told The Associated Press shortly after the accident he would like her to retire.

“Life is life and we have to take the punches that come,” Vonn said. “Going to do the best I can with this one. It really knocked me down. But I’m like Rocky: I’ll just keep getting back up.”

 

VAIL, Colo. — American skier Lindsey Vonn says she nearly lost her left leg following a frightening crash in the women’s downhill at the Milan Cortina Olympics.

Vonn shared in an Instagram post on Monday that her injuries went far beyond the complex tibia fracture in the leg she initially revealed after clipping a gate and sailing off course just 13 seconds into her run on Feb. 8.

The 41-year-old skier from Burnsville said the trauma from the crash led to compartment syndrome in the leg. Compartment syndrome involves excessive pressure building up inside a muscle, either from bleeding or swelling. High pressure restricts blood flow and can lead to permanent injury if not treated quickly.

“When you have so much trauma to one area of your body, so that there’s too much blood and it gets stuck ,,, it basically crushes everything,” Vonn said.

Vonn credited Dr. Tom Hackett, an orthopedic surgeon who works for Vonn and Team USA, for conducting a fasciotomy to salvage her leg.

“He filleted it open (and) let it breathe, and he saved me,” she said.

Vonn noted that Hackett was only in Cortina because she was competing after tearing the ACL in her left knee shortly before the Olympics.

“If I hadn’t had done that, Tom wouldn’t have been there (and he) wouldn’t have been able to save my leg,” she said.

Vonn, who said she has been discharged from the hospital, also broke her right ankle in the crash.

“It has been quite the journey, and by far the most extreme and painful and challenging injury I’ve ever faced in my entire life times 100,” she said.

Vonn underwent multiple surgeries during a week-long stay at a hospital in Treviso, Italy, following the accident. She credited both Hackett and Italian doctors for their efforts to repair her leg, which she said was “in pieces” following the accident.

She says she struggled with pain and blood loss in the immediate aftermath and had to receive a transfusion to help raise her hemoglobin levels.

Vonn, who said she is “very much immobile,” is in a wheelchair at the moment but has turned her attention to her rehab and is working her way toward being able to use crutches. She estimated it will take about a year for the bones in her left leg to heal. Only after that will doctors be able to go in and repair the torn ACL, which played no role in the crash.

“It’s going to be a long road,” she said. “I always fight, and we keep going.”

Vonn stressed she had “no regrets” about her comeback following a six-year retirement or her decision to ski at the Olympics despite the knee injury.

“I wish it had ended differently, but I’d rather go down swinging than not try at all,” said Vonn, who was atop the World Cup series rankings in the downhill when she arrived in Cortina. “I think what I was able to achieve was more than anyone expected to begin with. … This year was incredible, and so worth everything.”

She likened her injuries to “one blip on the radar.” She did not go into any sort of detail about her competitive career, though her father, Alan Kildow, told The Associated Press shortly after the accident he would like her to retire.

“Life is life and we have to take the punches that come,” Vonn said. “Going to do the best I can with this one. It really knocked me down. But I’m like Rocky: I’ll just keep getting back up.”

 

By MARK SCOLFORO

HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) — Criminal investigators hoping to develop suspects in difficult cases have been asking Google to reveal who searched for specific information online, seeking “reverse keyword” warrants that critics warn threaten the privacy of innocent people.

Unlike traditional search warrants that target a known suspect or location, keyword warrants work backward by identifying internet addresses where searches were made in a certain window of time for particular terms, such as a street address where a crime occurred or a phrase like “pipe bomb.”

Police have used the method to investigate a series of bombings in Texas, the assassination of a Brazilian politician and a fatal arson in Colorado.

It’s not a wild guess by investigators to conclude that people are using Google searches in all manner of crimes, as the company’s search engine has become the main gateway to the internet and users’ daily lives increasingly leave online traces. The potential value to investigators of the data Google collects is obvious in cases with no suspect, such as the search for Nancy Guthrie’s kidnapper.

The legal tension between the need to solve crimes quickly and the U.S. Constitution’s Fourth Amendment protections against overly broad searches was at the heart of a recent Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision that upheld the use of a reverse keyword warrant in a rape investigation.

Privacy advocates see it as giving police “unfettered access to the thoughts, feelings, concerns and secrets of countless people,” according to an amicus brief filed in the Pennsylvania appeal by the American Civil Liberties Union, the Internet Archive and several library organizations.

In response to written questions about the warrants, Google provided an emailed statement: “Our processes for handling law enforcement requests are designed to protect users’ privacy while meeting our legal obligations. We review all legal demands for legal validity, and we push back against those that are overbroad or improper, including objecting to some entirely.”

A break in the case

Pennsylvania State Police were stymied in their investigation into the violent rape of a woman in 2016 on a remote cul-de-sac outside Milton, a small community in the center of the state. With no clear leads, police obtained a warrant directing Google to disclose accounts that searched for the victim’s name or address over the week when she was attacked.

More than a year later, Google reported two searches for the woman’s address were made a few hours before the assault from a specific IP address, a numeric designation that lists where a phone or computer lives on the internet.

That led them to the home of a state prison guard named John Edward Kurtz.

John Edward Kurtz, a former prison guard, is taken by state troopers to be arraigned in Milton, Pa., Dec. 18, 2017. (Kevin Mertz/Standard Journal via AP)

Police then conducted surveillance and collected a cigarette butt he discarded that matched DNA recovered from the victim, according to court records. He confessed to the rape and attacks involving four other women over a five-year period, and was convicted in 2020. Now 51, he’s been sentenced to 59 to 280 years.

Kurtz’s attorneys argued police lacked probable cause to obtain the information and impinged on his privacy rights.

The state Supreme Court rejected those claims late last year but split on the reasons why. Three justices said Kurtz should not have expected his Google searches to be private, while three more said police had probable cause to look for anyone who searched the victim’s address before the attack. But a dissenting justice said probable cause requires more than just a “bald hunch” and guessing that a perpetrator would have used Google.

Kurtz lawyer Douglas Taglieri made the same point in a court filing, but conceded, “It was a good guess.”

Julia Skinner, a prosecutor in the case, said reverse keyword searches are much more effective when there are specific and even unusual terms that can narrow results, such as a distinctive name or an address. They are also particularly effective when crimes appear to have been planned out beforehand, she said.

“I don’t think they’re used super frequently, because what you need to target has to be so specific,” she said. There were 57 searches returned in the Kurtz case, but many of them were first responders trying to locate the home in the immediate aftermath of the crime, Skinner said.

FILE – Investigators stand outside a house where five immigrants from Senegal were found dead after a fire in suburban Denver on Aug. 5, 2020. (AP Photo/Thomas Peipert, File)

Acting in good faith

In the similar case in Colorado, police sought the IP addresses of anyone who searched over a 15-day period for the address of a home where a deadly arson occurred. Authorities got IP addresses for 61 searches made by eight accounts, ultimately helping identify three teenage suspects.

The Colorado Supreme Court ruled in 2023 that although the keyword warrant was constitutionally defective for not specifying an “individualized probable cause,” the evidence could be used because police had acted in good faith about what was known about the law at the time.

“If dystopian problems emerge, as some fear, the courts stand ready to hear argument regarding how we should rein in law enforcement’s use of rapidly advancing technology,” the majority of Colorado justices ruled.

Related Articles

Armed man shot and killed at Mar-a-Lago was never interested in politics or guns, cousin says

Fed’s Waller says rate cut in March is a ‘coin flip’ following a strong US jobs report

After Supreme Court rebuke, Democrats call for government to refund billions in Trump tariff money

Supreme Court agrees to hear from oil and gas companies trying to block climate change lawsuits

Judge blocks release of special counsel Jack Smith’s report on Trump classified documents case

Courts have long permitted investigators to seek things like bank records or phone logs. However, civil liberties groups say extending those powers to online keywords turns every search user into a suspect.

It’s unclear how many keyword warrants are issued every year — Google does not break down the total number of warrants it receives by type, according to the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the Pennsylvania Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in a January 2024 brief.

The two groups said police working on the bombings in Austin, Texas, sought anyone who searched for terms such as “low explosives” and “pipe bomb.” And in Brazil, investigators trying to solve the 2018 assassination in Rio de Janeiro of the politician Marielle Franco asked for those who searched for Franco’s name and the street where she lived. A Brazilian high court is expected to decide soon on the legality of those search disclosures.

Reverse keyword warrants are distinct from “geofence” warrants, where criminal investigators seek information about who was in a given area at a particular time. The U.S. Supreme Court said last month it will rule on that method’s constitutionality.

An index of deeply personal matters

For many people, their Google search history contains some of their most personal thoughts, from health issues and political beliefs to financial decisions and spending patterns. Google is introducing more artificial intelligence into its search engine, seemingly a way to learn even more about users.

“What could be more embarrassing,” asked University of Pennsylvania law professor and civil rights lawyer David Rudovsky, if every Google search “was now out there, gone viral?”

Google warns users personal information can be shared outside the company when it has a “good-faith belief that disclosure of the information is reasonably necessary” to respond to applicable laws, regulations, legal processes or an “enforceable government request.”

In the Kurtz case, Pennsylvania Justice David Wecht drew a distinction between Kurtz deciding to search for the victim’s name on Google and a 2018 U.S. Supreme Court decision that limited the use of broad collections of cellphone location data.

“A user who wants to keep such material private has options,” Wecht wrote. “That user does not have to click on Google.”

AP Technology Writer Michael Liedtke in San Francisco and writer Mauricio Savarese in Sao Paulo, Brazil, contributed.

By MARK SCOLFORO

HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) — Criminal investigators hoping to develop suspects in difficult cases have been asking Google to reveal who searched for specific information online, seeking “reverse keyword” warrants that critics warn threaten the privacy of innocent people.

Unlike traditional search warrants that target a known suspect or location, keyword warrants work backward by identifying internet addresses where searches were made in a certain window of time for particular terms, such as a street address where a crime occurred or a phrase like “pipe bomb.”

Police have used the method to investigate a series of bombings in Texas, the assassination of a Brazilian politician and a fatal arson in Colorado.

It’s not a wild guess by investigators to conclude that people are using Google searches in all manner of crimes, as the company’s search engine has become the main gateway to the internet and users’ daily lives increasingly leave online traces. The potential value to investigators of the data Google collects is obvious in cases with no suspect, such as the search for Nancy Guthrie’s kidnapper.

The legal tension between the need to solve crimes quickly and the U.S. Constitution’s Fourth Amendment protections against overly broad searches was at the heart of a recent Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision that upheld the use of a reverse keyword warrant in a rape investigation.

Privacy advocates see it as giving police “unfettered access to the thoughts, feelings, concerns and secrets of countless people,” according to an amicus brief filed in the Pennsylvania appeal by the American Civil Liberties Union, the Internet Archive and several library organizations.

In response to written questions about the warrants, Google provided an emailed statement: “Our processes for handling law enforcement requests are designed to protect users’ privacy while meeting our legal obligations. We review all legal demands for legal validity, and we push back against those that are overbroad or improper, including objecting to some entirely.”

A break in the case

Pennsylvania State Police were stymied in their investigation into the violent rape of a woman in 2016 on a remote cul-de-sac outside Milton, a small community in the center of the state. With no clear leads, police obtained a warrant directing Google to disclose accounts that searched for the victim’s name or address over the week when she was attacked.

More than a year later, Google reported two searches for the woman’s address were made a few hours before the assault from a specific IP address, a numeric designation that lists where a phone or computer lives on the internet.

That led them to the home of a state prison guard named John Edward Kurtz.

John Edward Kurtz, a former prison guard, is taken by state troopers to be arraigned in Milton, Pa., Dec. 18, 2017. (Kevin Mertz/Standard Journal via AP)

Police then conducted surveillance and collected a cigarette butt he discarded that matched DNA recovered from the victim, according to court records. He confessed to the rape and attacks involving four other women over a five-year period, and was convicted in 2020. Now 51, he’s been sentenced to 59 to 280 years.

Kurtz’s attorneys argued police lacked probable cause to obtain the information and impinged on his privacy rights.

The state Supreme Court rejected those claims late last year but split on the reasons why. Three justices said Kurtz should not have expected his Google searches to be private, while three more said police had probable cause to look for anyone who searched the victim’s address before the attack. But a dissenting justice said probable cause requires more than just a “bald hunch” and guessing that a perpetrator would have used Google.

Kurtz lawyer Douglas Taglieri made the same point in a court filing, but conceded, “It was a good guess.”

Julia Skinner, a prosecutor in the case, said reverse keyword searches are much more effective when there are specific and even unusual terms that can narrow results, such as a distinctive name or an address. They are also particularly effective when crimes appear to have been planned out beforehand, she said.

“I don’t think they’re used super frequently, because what you need to target has to be so specific,” she said. There were 57 searches returned in the Kurtz case, but many of them were first responders trying to locate the home in the immediate aftermath of the crime, Skinner said.

FILE – Investigators stand outside a house where five immigrants from Senegal were found dead after a fire in suburban Denver on Aug. 5, 2020. (AP Photo/Thomas Peipert, File)

Acting in good faith

In the similar case in Colorado, police sought the IP addresses of anyone who searched over a 15-day period for the address of a home where a deadly arson occurred. Authorities got IP addresses for 61 searches made by eight accounts, ultimately helping identify three teenage suspects.

The Colorado Supreme Court ruled in 2023 that although the keyword warrant was constitutionally defective for not specifying an “individualized probable cause,” the evidence could be used because police had acted in good faith about what was known about the law at the time.

“If dystopian problems emerge, as some fear, the courts stand ready to hear argument regarding how we should rein in law enforcement’s use of rapidly advancing technology,” the majority of Colorado justices ruled.

Related Articles

Armed man shot and killed at Mar-a-Lago was never interested in politics or guns, cousin says

Fed’s Waller says rate cut in March is a ‘coin flip’ following a strong US jobs report

After Supreme Court rebuke, Democrats call for government to refund billions in Trump tariff money

Supreme Court agrees to hear from oil and gas companies trying to block climate change lawsuits

Judge blocks release of special counsel Jack Smith’s report on Trump classified documents case

Courts have long permitted investigators to seek things like bank records or phone logs. However, civil liberties groups say extending those powers to online keywords turns every search user into a suspect.

It’s unclear how many keyword warrants are issued every year — Google does not break down the total number of warrants it receives by type, according to the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the Pennsylvania Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in a January 2024 brief.

The two groups said police working on the bombings in Austin, Texas, sought anyone who searched for terms such as “low explosives” and “pipe bomb.” And in Brazil, investigators trying to solve the 2018 assassination in Rio de Janeiro of the politician Marielle Franco asked for those who searched for Franco’s name and the street where she lived. A Brazilian high court is expected to decide soon on the legality of those search disclosures.

Reverse keyword warrants are distinct from “geofence” warrants, where criminal investigators seek information about who was in a given area at a particular time. The U.S. Supreme Court said last month it will rule on that method’s constitutionality.

An index of deeply personal matters

For many people, their Google search history contains some of their most personal thoughts, from health issues and political beliefs to financial decisions and spending patterns. Google is introducing more artificial intelligence into its search engine, seemingly a way to learn even more about users.

“What could be more embarrassing,” asked University of Pennsylvania law professor and civil rights lawyer David Rudovsky, if every Google search “was now out there, gone viral?”

Google warns users personal information can be shared outside the company when it has a “good-faith belief that disclosure of the information is reasonably necessary” to respond to applicable laws, regulations, legal processes or an “enforceable government request.”

In the Kurtz case, Pennsylvania Justice David Wecht drew a distinction between Kurtz deciding to search for the victim’s name on Google and a 2018 U.S. Supreme Court decision that limited the use of broad collections of cellphone location data.

“A user who wants to keep such material private has options,” Wecht wrote. “That user does not have to click on Google.”

AP Technology Writer Michael Liedtke in San Francisco and writer Mauricio Savarese in Sao Paulo, Brazil, contributed.