Kristen Lindsey case: authorities failed to issue search warrant to Facebook

By Jean Salyer

Intro: if you are unsure about the Kristen Lindsey case please start by clicking this link (and come back). She’s a vet who worked in Texas and who allegedly killed a neighbor’s cat with a bow and arrow through the head at close range because she likes to kill animals she said on Facebook. The Facebook ‘evidence’ was removed shortly after it was posted.

lindsey-1

QUESTION: WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A SUBPOENA AND A SEARCH WARRANT?

ANSWER: AN INDICTMENT

At least that seems to be the case when DA Travis Koehn conducts an investigation. In what may have been the fastest grand jury hearing in history, the Kristen Lindsey case was settled in a few short hours.

The jury convened in the morning, and by early afternoon it was a done deal. It’s hard to believe that experts testified, law enforcement testified, the DA argued his case, the jurors deliberated, results were presented to the DA, findings were analyzed, and a press release was written and published- all in the space of 5 hours or so.

Wow, things sure move fast in Koehn’s neck of the woods! So fast that maybe – just maybe- the investigation wasn’t as thorough as the DA claimed it was. Maybe he didn’t bother to get the evidence he needed to convince the grand jury to indict.

Here is one of many troublesome aspects to the Lindsey investigation: Travis Koehn stated in his press release that “Subpoenas to Facebook failed to produce useable evidence, as the account was deleted the same day law enforcement became aware of the matter.”

On the surface that sounds almost reasonable. The man issued a subpoena, and Facebook complied. The subpoena didn’t turn up much. What’s a fella to do? He tried, right?

Oh wait, not so fast… first let’s take a look at what a SUBPOENA to Facebook will actually produce in terms of evidence. This is what you get: “name, length of service, credit card information, email address(es) and a recent login/logout IP address(es), if available.” Oh boy, all that for the price of one subpoena! Travis Koehn must have been thrilled to find out which credit cards Kristen Lindsey uses.

Golly gee whiz, if only he had obtained an actual SEARCH WARRANT as required by law to get account information that might actually have incriminated Lindsey…

Here’s what a SEARCH WARRANT will get you: messages, videos, wall posts, photos and location information. Oh, and Facebook typically stores info for 90 days. Anyone taking bets that Mr. K got right on this? In addition, Mr. K could have applied for Facebook “Account Preservation” to make sure KL’s FB data didn’t vanish. Maybe he was just too busy thinking of ways to get Lindsey off. I mean, the bow and arrow = humane euthanasia theory of his—now that’s a reach! And, let’s not forget the “Well, darn, we don’t even know if this happened in Texas” dodge. A three minute interview with KL’s parents, who witnessed and photographed this joyous family bonding moment, would’ve cleared that right up.

Here’s the real kicker though: it appears that KL never deleted her account, but only deactivated it, meaning some of the old stuff she posted might still be there. How do we know this, you ask? Last week, KL briefly displayed a FB account under the name Kristen Erin, which showed friends and a timeline going back as far as 2009. Pretty cool trick to backdate a brand new Kristen Erin account— we’d love to know how she did this.

Now, are we positive that Mr. Koehn didn’t obtain a search warrant for KL’s Facebook records? Not really, but keep in mind the DA only mentioned a subpoena in his press release. Quite a boo-boo for a lawyer if he meant to write “Search Warrant”… or maybe he thinks it’s none of our business, as he seems to think justice is none of our business.

lindsey-2

For those who are interested in learning more about Facebook’s compliance with the law, here’s the fine print:

This is Facebook’s policy about law enforcement requests for data:

“US Legal Process Requirements

We disclose account records solely in accordance with our terms of service and applicable law, including the federal Stored Communications Act (“SCA”), 18 U.S.C. Sections 2701-2712. Under US law:

A valid subpoena issued in connection with an official criminal investigation is required to compel the disclosure of basic subscriber records (defined in 18 U.S.C. Section 2703(c)(2)), which may include: name, length of service, credit card information, email address(es), and a recent login/logout IP address(es), if available.

A court order issued under 18 U.S.C. Section 2703(d) is required to compel the disclosure of certain records or other information pertaining to the account, not including contents of communications, which may include message headers and IP addresses, in addition to the basic subscriber records identified above.

A search warrant issued under the procedures described in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure or equivalent state warrant procedures upon a showing of probable cause is required to compel the disclosure of the stored contents of any account, which may include messages, photos, videos, wall posts, and location information.

We interpret the national security letter provision as applied to Facebook to require the production of only 2 categories of information: name and length of service.

International Legal Process Requirements

We disclose account records solely in accordance with our terms of service and applicable law. A Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty request or letter rogatory may be required to compel the disclosure of the contents of an account. Further information can be found here:facebook.com/about/privacy/other.

Account Preservation

We will take steps to preserve account records in connection with official criminal investigations for 90 days pending our receipt of formal legal process. You may expeditiously submit formal preservation requests through the Law Enforcement Online Request System atfacebook.com/records, or by email, or mail as indicated below.

Emergency Requests

In responding to a matter involving imminent harm to a child or risk of death or serious physical injury to any person and requiring disclosure of information without delay, a law enforcement official may submit a request through the Law Enforcement Online Request System atfacebook.com/records. Important note: We will not review or respond to messages sent to this email address by non-law enforcement officials. Users aware of an emergency situation should immediately and directly contact local law enforcement officials.

We also may retain information from accounts disabled for violations of our terms for at least a year to prevent repeat abuse or other violations of our terms.”

If you’d like to use FB comments, they are right here: FB comments spread the word as they are also published on Facebook. WordPress comments are at the base of the page so use those if you wish. Thanks.

 

Want to ask a question or tell us your cat story in an article rather than a comment, please use the form below:

[ap-form]
 

Facebook Discussion
This entry was posted in crime and tagged , , , , by Michael Broad. Bookmark the permalink.

About Michael Broad

Michael is retired! He retired at age 57 and at Aug 2018 is approaching 70. He worked in many jobs. The last job he did was as a solicitor practicing general law. He loves animals and is passionate about animal welfare. He also loves photography and nature. He hates animal abuse. He has owned and managed this site since 2007. There are around 13k pages so please use the custom search facility!

Comments

Kristen Lindsey case: authorities failed to issue search warrant to Facebook — 20 Comments

  1. BTW Tigers body position in that photo strongly suggests he may have not been dead at that point. The drawn up leg and slight curl to the tail suggest either a nerve reaction or pain. She is a monster.

    • I have heard that point of view before and it is a good one. He might well have been alive and dying in the photo. Indeed a monster and totally unsuited to being a veterinarian. She should have been struck of on unsuitability grounds alone.

  2. This case was botched from the beginning. Having DVM cursed the case from the very beginning as the State Veterinary Board became the main player in the case. Fox watching the hen house. This was animal abuse and should have been prosecuted as such in a criminal courtroom. With a conviction of animal abuse the SVB would have had little choice and her very little ammunition to fight losing her license. Professional conduct issues.

    • Correct and correct again. It is a complete BS case. Mishandled or deliberately avoided the criminal aspect. And yet KL appealed even her mild punishment of suspension. The arrogance and ignorance of the woman.

  3. What happened to that witch? Is she doing well? Lost her practice? Killing more cats? I would like to hear that she suffered for her crime, but it just doesn’t work that way, sadly. I hope people in her area keep posting, for years to come, your story about her murdering that sweet baby.

    • As far as I know she is still suspended and still challenging court decisions against her. I could be wrong. Many wish her a dire future because they believe she has not been punished adequately.

  4. That she euthanized the cat “because he was feral” (and i bet no one believes this so…

    She should be compelled to produce the body that she has now admitted to killing and all questions of innocence (or guilt) would be answered

  5. At this point, we can only hope that her “practice” will suffer.
    Cat owners are pretty savvy these days when trying to find a competent vet. They may run across these articles and become inflamed, as we are.

  6. No, Jean, I’m not taking that bet that Mr. K. was efficient and thorough. He’s a real mover and shaker when he wants to be, isn’t he? Am I surprised by this? Nope. They just didn’t care. I can just imagine the conversation in the office: “Well, it was just a cat, this young woman made a mistake, there’s no need for us to dig into this too closely. We’ll just go through the motions.”

    • I think you have hit the nail on the head describing their conversation. It is appalling. They probably think we are crazy cat lovers or animal rights crazies. We are just people who care about animals because we have to on this messed up planet.

      • Michael, I used to work in a law office. The fact that she’s a vet who’s bragged online that she just loves killing and hurting animals apparently isn’t ringing any alarm bells with that DA. I also would not be surprised if the DA knew her family, since her mom is a city employee. The only way I can see Lindsey getting what she richly deserves is if cat owners nationwide unite to make her a pariah so she is unable to make a living as a vet. And I really don’t see that happening either. She’s not the only weird or unsavory vet out here. Someone will hire her.

        Do I want to see her wear sackcloth and ashes? Darn right I do. But I don’t see that happening either. Like you said, the human race has a very short memory.

        • I agree with all you say. In effect she is being protected by ‘the establishment’ – the great and the good (bad) in power. It has always been like that. We need a revolution in the West! 😉

          • Keep the pressure on her. Personally any bad press or post that shows her in flagrant killing mode should be out there z. DON’T LET THIS GO AWAY

            • Thanks for the support. All decent-minded people want justice to be done and seen to be done in the interests of cats and animals in general.

        • Kristen’s mother works in WY, not TX. It was alleged her parents were visiting here when this happened and her mother admitted taking the picture-all on Facebook.

  7. Many thanks, Jean, for a first class post. Note to others: this was a comment which I have converted to an article.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


Please try and upload photos that are small in size of max 500px width and 50 KB size. Large images typical of most default settings on digital cameras may fail to upload. Thanks. Comment rules: (1) respect others (2) threatening, harassing, bullying, insulting and being rude to others is forbidden (3) advocating cat cruelty is forbidden (4) trolls (I know who they are) must use real name and upload a photo of themselves. Enforcement: (1) inappropriate comments are deleted before publication and (2) commenters who demonstrate a desire to flout the rules are banned. Failure to comply with (4) results in non-publication. Lastly, please avoid adding links because spam software regards comments with links as spam and holds them in the spam folder. I delete the spam folder contents daily.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.