So since I was just talking about biological data (DNA) being obtained as evidence, it seems fitting to also point to a somewhat concerning case in Ohio. Karin Johnson reports:
A Middletown man was indicted on charges of arson and insurance fraud.
Police said data they were able to retrieve from his electronic heart monitor was one of the key pieces of evidence that led to them charging Ross Compton.
A fire last September destroyed Compton’s house on Court Donegal in Middletown.
In his 911 call, he told a dispatcher, “I grabbed a bunch of stuff, threw it out the window.”
Compton also told the dispatcher that he had an artificial heart.
Middletown police said Compton told them that he was able to pack his suitcases and
throw them out his bedroom window after he broke out the glass with a walking stick.
According to court documents obtained by WLWT, a cardiologist told police that those actions were “highly improbable” because of Compton’s medical condition.
Police sought to prove that by collecting electronic data stored in Compton’s electronic heart device. They wanted to know Compton’s heart rate, pacer demand and cardiac rhythms before, during and after the fire.
Read more on WLWT.
So where are we going if devices that people wear for their health conditions can be used as evidence against them to obtain warrants, or to convict them? Does evidence based on the devices meet the Daubert standard? Are there any Fifth Amendment issues here? Is this really any different than using a blood draw for alcohol level in a suspected drunk-driving case that resulted in injuries?
h/t, Joe Cadillic