Slashdot Mirror
Police Use Pacemaker Data To Charge Homeowner With Arson, Insurance Fraud (networkworld.com)
JustAnotherOldGuy writes from a report via Network World: If you're dependent upon an embedded medical device, the device that helps keep you alive may also be used to incriminate you in a crime. Ross Compton, a 59-year-old homeowner in Ohio called 911 in September 2016 to say that his house was on fire, however there were many irregularities to the blaze that investigators found suspicious, such as contradictory statements from Compton and the way that the fire had started. In the ensuing investigation, the police secured a warrant for the logs from his pacemaker, specifically, "Compton's heart rate, pacer demand and cardiac rhythms before, during and after the fire." They subsequently filed charges of felony aggravated arson and insurance fraud. Middletown Police said this was the first time it had used data from a heart device to make an arrest, but the pacemaker data proved to be an "excellent investigative tool"; the data from the pacemaker didn't correspond with Compton's version of what happened. The retrieved data was used to help indict Compton. Lt. Jimmy Cunningham stated, "It was one of the key pieces of evidence that allowed us to charge him."
You should have read the article rather than the click-bait headline.
They found gasoline on his clothing, the fire starting in multiple places in his house and the guy claimed to have packed up suitcases of his belongings and tossed them out of the house during the fire (while somehow not having time to bother rescuing his cat). The pacemaker data was not the primary evidence used to indict him.
They haven't convicted him based on just the pacemaker evidence. The pacemaker evidence was used to build an argument that his alibi was bullshit.
Yes other activities could have created the same pacemaker output. But he didn't claim to be doing any of those. He claimed 1 thing, the massive pile of evidence, including but not limited to the pacemaker logs, said otherwise.
It's the prosecution's job to assert guilt. I'm not sure why you think it's odd that they'd do so.
It's the court's job to decide whether the evidence produced meets the standard of guilt.
Your argument wouldn't work because the heart rate data had already been sent to a third party. Since the information was already given to a third party and the third party is the subject of the warrant, it's no longer a case of the defendant being compelled to do anything.
The best argument against the use of the heart monitor data would actually be the HIPAA privacy rule.
The 5th amendment protection against self-incrimination is, to the actual letter of the law, that someone "shall not be compelled to be a witness against himself". Which the intent was that no person shall be forced to give testimony or make forced confessions or possibly have their words manipulated to be used against him/her. Testimony is the act of the person saying or asserting things.
A lot of people confuse this with things that they operate or own to be used as evidence against them. The protection against self-incrimination does not mean that no evidence can be produced to be used against you. And the data from your pacemaker hardly qualifies as you being forced to testify.
They weren't talking to his doctor. They got records from a third party (the pacemaker manufacturer).
Now, the interesting bit that you can't discern from TFA is whether the pacemaker data was specifically downloaded for purposes of the investigation or if the information came out on routine interrogation. I'm guessing the former since you only check the pacer if you think there is a problem or perhaps twice a year. If the downloading of the data was compulsory, that opens some entertaining legal questions.
Latter.
Pacemakers are typically tested quarterly when in working order, monthly when in low battery state when the device supports transtelephonic or inductive testing. Yearly in-person checkups are also typically done. (Transtelephonic: Patient wears a device on each hand or wrist, device communicates with remote servers over a POTS system. Inductive: Patient places a device over pacemaker and initiates remote reading, device communicates over phone, cellular, network, or internet to remote servers.)
Some "remote monitoring" platforms support automatic daily to 3-week intervals and send results to the manufacturer accordingly. (Source, PDF)
--You will rephrase your request for me to go to hell. Goto statements are not acceptable programming constructs
HIPPA Explicitly allows for medical information to be released in compliance with a court ordered warrant.
45 CFR 164.512(f)(1)(ii)(A)-(B)
I think it's not at all clear that HIPPA was intended to prevent this kind of data collection, it seems pretty clear that it was intended to ALLOW for it.