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."

5 of 216 comments (clear)

  1. David Crawford by Motherfucking+Shit · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This reminds me of the murder of David Crawford in Australia. The killer had an alibi matching what police initially thought was the time of death. By analyzing data from Crawford's pacemaker, they were able to pinpoint the exact moment he died, which busted the killer's alibi.

    --
    "BSD: Free as in speech. Linux: Free as in beer. Windows 10: Free as in herpes." --Man On Pink Corner in #52607549.
  2. Re:I think it's safe to say that wouldn't hold up by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Why not? All kinds of pseudo-science and bogus evidence has been accepted in the past. Arson and bite mark "evidence" are clear examples of this.

    A good example of this was Cameron Todd Willingham. He was executed in Texas for murder and arson based on flimsy pseudo-science evidence. Based on what we have subsequently learned about how fires start and spread, many arson experts now believe he was almost certainly innocent. Oops.

  3. Re:Warrant issued upon probable cause by Kjella · · Score: 4, Interesting

    In full compliance with the Bill of Rights, in other words. Are we supposed to be outraged anyway?

    Probably not, according to Wikipedia:

    In the United States, the Federal Rules of Evidence do not recognize doctor-patient privilege. At the state level, the extent of the privilege varies depending on the law of the applicable jurisdiction.

    If you can't claim privilege on the doctor, you probably can't claim it on medical equipment either. Here in Norway it's the other way around, we've found that the need for everyone to be able to seek medical aid is greater than the need for healthcare personnel to aid in criminal investigations, except when there's a clear threat of harm or to identify those involved in accidents and disasters. That is to say the police can certainly request drug tests, DNA tests, blood alcohol checks and such but they can't ask healthcare personnel to repeat what you told them. Not even with a court order.

    Following that principle, I think the pacemaker data would be considered privileged here or at least it should, that is you're not going to be forced to choose between having a pacemaker and giving the police a tool with which to convict you. It's not something that should be granted lightly but I think attorney-client, clergy and a few others should. I'd certainly rank doctor-patient more worthy than spousal privilege, which is actually protected by US law. It's a bit odd when they can compel the rest of your family, blood is thicker than water but not in this case.

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  4. Re:I think it's safe to say that wouldn't hold up by demonlapin · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It wasn't transmitted to a third party. It was held by the pacemaker. It was literally still inside his body. He wasn't under remote monitoring.

    I agree that this should qualify for a HIPAA exemption. The information was collected solely to influence his medical treatment. As a doctor, I'm very ambivalent about HIPAA, but this is pretty clearly the sort of thing it's meant to prevent. Bad cases make bad law, of course, but they should be able to make a good case against him with the other evidence. If you're relying on pacemaker data, well... they're not that reliable.

  5. Re:Fifth amendment by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The problem is these things are always tested on "shifty bastards". As soon as precedent is available, they get extended to ordinary people.

    "The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all." -- H. L. Mencklen