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."

Comments

some things you cannot avoid.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:I think it's safe to say that wouldn't hold up

[whoever57]

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.

Warrant issued upon probable cause

[mi]

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?

Re:Warrant issued upon probable cause

[Kjella]

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.

David Crawford

[Motherfucking Shit]

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.

Re:I think it's safe to say that wouldn't hold up

[GrumpySteen]

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.

Re:Fifth amendment

[gweihir]

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

Re:I think it's safe to say that wouldn't hold up

[ShanghaiBill]

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.

Re:I think it's safe to say that wouldn't hold up

[GrumpySteen]

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.

don't get confused

[supernova87a]

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.

Re:I think it's safe to say that wouldn't hold up

[demonlapin]

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.

Re:Fifth amendment

[ShanghaiBill]

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

Re:I think it's safe to say that wouldn't hold up

[hcs_$reboot]

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.

Re:I think it's safe to say that wouldn't hold up

[Cederic]

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.

Re:I think it's safe to say that wouldn't hold up

[Sloppy]

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.