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."

43 of 216 comments (clear)

  1. I think it's safe to say that wouldn't hold up by rsilvergun · · Score: 2

    in court. Not if he had the money to fight it. But with our justice system they'll get a conviction out of him. Well, a plea bargain. Hell, guy's house just burned down. One way or the other he's not gonna have the money to pay legal bills.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:I think it's safe to say that wouldn't hold up by whoever57 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    2. Re:I think it's safe to say that wouldn't hold up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Of course not. If he chose to fight it, they would load him up with other charges. A jury would find him guilty of something. The process is the punishment.

      Hollywood would like you to think an innocent person could fight against this. They are wrong. You go to court, you're screwed whether you win or lose.

    3. Re:I think it's safe to say that wouldn't hold up by GrumpySteen · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

    4. Re:I think it's safe to say that wouldn't hold up by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 2

      That may be the case, but IMO this shouldn't be admissible in court. In my opinion, it should be legally treated the same as one's own testimony, and law enforcement can't compel you to turn over any information contained in it. I think a similar doctrine should apply to any kind of "truth serum" drugs or any possible future technology that could directly read thoughts or memories from your brain.

      The only exception should be if you're dead and a post-mortem investigation is needed.

    5. 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.

    6. Re:I think it's safe to say that wouldn't hold up by GrumpySteen · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

    7. 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.

    8. Re:I think it's safe to say that wouldn't hold up by mysidia · · Score: 2

      because the heart rate data had already been sent to a third party.

      Not just any random 3rd party, a confidential patient-doctor exchange to a physician
      for purpose of medical treatment. Not for the purpose of retaining and sharing
      or using for business or other purposes as they like.
      Confidential privileged and sensitive private communications with a doctor.
      It's similar to sharing information with your lawyer for advise; there should bebody court holding an opinion that they
      are justified in prying.....

    9. Re:I think it's safe to say that wouldn't hold up by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 2

      That may be the case, but IMO this shouldn't be admissible in court. In my opinion, it should be legally treated the same as one's own testimony, and law enforcement can't compel you to turn over any information contained in it.

      It was treated no differently than any other records a person keeps. If you leave a trail, whether it is paper or electronic, it can be obtained with a warrant and used as evidence.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    10. Re:I think it's safe to say that wouldn't hold up by Darinbob · · Score: 2

      That's a huge stretch of the constitution. Which has, "nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself". He was not compelled to witness against himself. He does have to respond to lawful warrants for search though, but is not required to speak or provide any information. Ie, they can take fingerprints and this has never been considered to be self incrimination. Likewise they can get a warrant for the pacemaker logs, or phone records, or a lock of hair, a breath sample, etc.

    11. Re:I think it's safe to say that wouldn't hold up by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 4, Insightful

      He was executed in Texas for murder and arson based (...) many arson experts now believe he was almost certainly innocent. Oops.

      Another strong argument against the death penalty.

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    12. Re:I think it's safe to say that wouldn't hold up by silentcoder · · Score: 2

      Let's assume you're right - if it was, that's medical records data, which is already privileged information. If the law doesn't recognize pacemaker records as privileged, then the law needs to be updated to account for technological changes.

      It doesn't stop being medical information because it's stored (or sent by) a medical device as opposed to being told to a doctor.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    13. Re:I think it's safe to say that wouldn't hold up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

    14. Re:I think it's safe to say that wouldn't hold up by vakuona · · Score: 3, Insightful

      He was executed in Texas for murder and arson based (...) many arson experts now believe he was almost certainly innocent. Oops.

      Another strong argument against the death penalty.

      Also another argument against leaving decisions on technical matters to prosecutors. There were many chances to save that guy's life, and none were taken. There was testimony in good time that showed that there was no evidence that he had deliberately caused the fire, but it wasn't listened to.

      In any case, if a person is being found guilty of such a crime, I believe the jury needs to say what evidence was key in convicting. In this case, the key bit was that the fire had been started deliberately and, more specifically, that an accelerant had been used. If that testimony had been invalidated (which it later was), then basically the glove didn't fit, and the man should have been acquitted. This would have given the man an opportunity to put his effort into disproving the one key bit of evidence that was nailing him.

    15. Re:I think it's safe to say that wouldn't hold up by Cederic · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Go for it.

      I don't support the death penalty even for people I'd personally happily kill because the death penalty is inherently flawed and the moment you start making exceptions you step irrevocably away from the concept of justice.

    16. Re:I think it's safe to say that wouldn't hold up by Sloppy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If it's an argument at all, it's one against all forms of criminal sentencing of any kind whatsoever, not just the death penalty.

      I still can't believe some people think the sentences are what's wrong, instead of the inaccurate verdicts. It's as though people think that figuratively taking an innocent person's life by putting them in prison for decades (or life) isn't an irreparable injustice on par with murder.

      I have to call total and complete bullshit on that. How about I imprison you for years, perhaps also as my rape-slave among other violations of your dignity and a total denial of the entire life you wanted to live, and let's see if you don't, at some point, say "I wish he'd just kill me."

      Get the trial right!! That is where efforts are most needed.

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    17. Re:I think it's safe to say that wouldn't hold up by parkinglot777 · · Score: 2

      check your facts.. a simple google search refutes this absolute you give

      In general, the GP is correct because what the GP did NOT spell out "absolute" at all. Of course, everything in law has exceptions. From a quick google, you can get the answer here.

      Of course, as with most things in a courtroom, every rule has its exception. In the rare instance that both parties agree that the results of a polygraph exam should be admissible for some reason, the court could allow it as evidence. Polygraphs are also commonly used as part of the screening process for certain types of jobs, such as law enforcement and some high level security positions. Nevertheless, for purposes of court procedures, absent a stipulation of the parties, the results of a lie detector test are likely never admissible.

    18. Re:I think it's safe to say that wouldn't hold up by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      I still can't believe some people think the sentences are what's wrong, instead of the inaccurate verdicts.

      Because the death penalty is fixable, while perfect verdicts are a fantasy. Capital punishment has been eliminated by most countries, including Russia, Myanmar, etc. Here is a map of countries that still have capital punishment. Is this really a club we want to belong to?

      taking an innocent person's life by putting them in prison for decades

      In this case, it would not have been "decades". He would have been released within a few years, and certainly after Rick Perry's presidential campaign collapsed. Perry, then governor of Texas, was under a lot of pressure to "look tough" for the primaries, so he granted few clemencies, and may have even impeded the appeals process. Perry dismissed evidence for Willingham's innocence, by claiming (without evidence) that he was a "wife beater".

      Oh, by the way, Rick Perry is Trump's nominee for Energy Secretary: Idiot Tasked With Maintaining America's Nukes Surprised to Learn What His Job Is.

    19. Re:I think it's safe to say that wouldn't hold up by Cederic · · Score: 2

      We clearly have different implementations of 'catflap'. Although I'd pity random rodents in my house, life expectancy is exceedingly poor.

  2. some things you cannot avoid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I have no intentions at all of burning anything down or committing any violent acts, but this is still a scary development.

    You can avoid a lot of the "spew all minutia of your life to the cloud!" insanity that's taken over the world, but if you need a pacemaker, well, you need a pacemaker. It's nothing something you can easily opt out of, well except for the usual "exercise eat right try to stay healthy" bit, but eventually, age catches up with everybody.

    Sometimes you can opt out of other people's stupidity. With medical care, not so much. Ditto when it comes to the security of your medical records, where de-anonymization of them is a massive industry now.

  3. Fifth amendment by Hognoxious · · Score: 2

    Is the pacemaker part of him? Is offloading the data testifying?

    In any case, I'm voting guilty. He looks like a shifty bastard.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    1. Re:Fifth amendment by gweihir · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    2. Re:Fifth amendment by Misch · · Score: 3, Informative

      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
    3. 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

  4. Warrant issued upon probable cause by mi · · Score: 4, Insightful

    the police secured a warrant for the logs from his pacemaker

    It seems like the warrant was issued upon probable cause and ...

    specifically, "Compton's heart rate, pacer demand and cardiac rhythms before, during and after the fire."

    ... the place to be searched and the things to be seized properly described.

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

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    1. Re:Warrant issued upon probable cause by whoever57 · · Score: 2

      It's not the 4th amendment that is important here. Instead, it's the 5th. What is an implanted medical device? What if you have an artificial heart? Does a device ever become part of a person?

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    2. 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
    3. Re:Warrant issued upon probable cause by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2

      My heart rate would be elevated too if I saw/smelled smoke.

      That wasn't the point of the information gathering. If they were focusing on just his heart rate and blood pressure responses to the fire then yes, it would be a stretch to prove causality. What they did is get an outside cardiologist to:

      1 - asses his level of probable cardiovascular fitness given his pre existing conditions
      2 - asses the level of cardiovascular response needed to move all of the stuff out of the house in the presumed short time between discovering the fire and being forced out of the house
      3 - look at the heart rate and rhythm and 'pacer demand' and tell the jury that there was no way that data fits with what he was describing.

      By itself that information is kinda squishy and a good trial lawyer and opposing experts could chop it up, but it seemed to fit with all of the rest of the story.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    4. Re:Warrant issued upon probable cause by Obfuscant · · Score: 2

      Why does his pacemaker report/record anything that isn't an emergency or suspect of one?

      So that his cardiologist can monitor his condition and pacemaker response to ensure it is working properly and providing the services necessary to keep him alive and well. Its the same reason a diabetic monitors his blood sugar levels. (When on a fixed medication plan, you don't monitor to decide how much insulin to use, you monitor to know if the fixed levels are right. A blood test gives you current sugar levels and an average level (through A1C), but won't tell if you are spiking extremely high or dropping low at times.)

      If all you record is the emergencies, then you miss all the times when it is marginally operational but still functioning, or when it is not providing sufficient services such that the patient self-limits his activity to stay within device limits.

    5. Re:Warrant issued upon probable cause by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      Either way, a lawyer will make mincemeat of the argument that an elevated heart rate right before a fire started is evidence of arson. My heart rate would be elevated too if I saw/smelled smoke.

      The argument is that a person with his heart condition couldn't have possibly seen the fire, packed his bags, broke the window, thrown his suitcases out the window, and run outside. As far as I can tell, they didn't even check the particular heartrate when it happened, they just checked his overall health.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    6. Re:Warrant issued upon probable cause by mi · · Score: 2

      So please explain, if the hypothetical device existed, what protection from self-incrimination anyone would have.

      Why, obviously, you still can not be compelled to testify against yourself. Your objections smack of equivocation — you declare this and that to be "tantamount" to a testimony and protest..

      That police may be able, due to advances in technology, to obtain evidence through means other than testimony does not change this. You attempted to dismiss my example of fingerprints before, but the distinction between something you know and something you have is without difference in this context. Advances in DNA-analysis is another major step from fingerprints to the hypothetical brain-reading.

      Contrary to the perception of some, the Bill of Rights is not designed to help criminals "beat the system". Its purpose is to prevent police abuses. So, if you wish to argue against certain practices, you need to show evidence of (or potential for) new abuse. And I fail to see, how scanning my brain — if, indeed, it can be done without damage to the organ — is any more abuse-prone, than reading my INBOX or watching videos on my phone.

      Come to think of it, my e-mail archives (since 1993) may contain stuff I've long forgotten! "Russian hackers" wishing to sabotage my election-campaign, for example, are likely to find juicier bits in there than in my brain...

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  5. 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.
    1. Re:David Crawford by gweihir · · Score: 2

      That is different and essentially data from an autopsy. It makes sense to get that and privacy does not really apply anymore.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  6. Re:Gulty until proven Innocent Evidence by Harlequin80 · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

  7. Re:Gulty until proven Innocent Evidence by kogut · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

  8. Irony by Dunbal · · Score: 2

    In an ironic twist of fate, the perpetrator committed the arson in an attempt to collect money to pay his medical bills.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  9. don't get confused by supernova87a · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:don't get confused by Khashishi · · Score: 2

      You don't have protection from self-incrimination. You have protection from being compelled to incriminate yourself. The reason that right exists is to protect you from being tortured or otherwise coerced into confessing. With that in mind, it's clear that reading your pacemaker logs doesn't fit under that condition.

    2. Re:don't get confused by gravewax · · Score: 2

      fingerprints, DNA, blood, all things you can be compelled to provide and all parts of your body.

  10. Re:Gulty until proven Innocent Evidence by jopsen · · Score: 2

    It's the prosecution's job to assert guilt. I'm not sure why you think it's odd that they'd do so.

    In most countries the prosecution has a duty to the truth that far outweighs all other concerns.

    On topic, this is no different than using data from a step counter, fitbit, or an exercise measuring phone app...
    It's an indicator of activity, it can't really be used for much in terms of proving guilt...

    Even if they guy made a statement saying it was sleeping before the fire broke out, then perhaps he just made a false statement because he was doing something else...

    Hopefully, this is all click bait, probably there is other evidence...

  11. Gratuitous speculation by golodh · · Score: 2
    @rsilvergun

    It's safe to say that your post is based on gratuitous speculation.

    Reading the linked articles it appears that the man had done things, notably moving heavy objects and exiting the house through his bedroom window, alledgedly between the start of the fire and him leaving the building, that were inconsistent with a cardiologist's estimate, on examination of the pacemaker data, of his body's maximum power output around that time. That's a pretty solid piece of evidence.

    The obvious conclusions is that this man moved his stuff out of the house _before_ the sire started, simply because he'd have to spread the required power output over a longer period than he left had when he reported the fire..

    As far as I can estimate such thiings (IANAL, etc.), this would be pretty convincing to a jury. Regardless of the quality of his legal defense.

    1. Re:Gratuitous speculation by Cederic · · Score: 2

      That's a pretty solid piece of evidence.

      I'm reluctant to decry the science behind that evidence, but I'm much more reluctant to allow prosecution on the grounds, "You should have had a heart attack and you didn't"

      If the other evidence is adequate to demonstrate illegal activity then prosecute. Pacemaker records should not be required or relevant.