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."
Warrant issued upon probable cause
By mi
•
2017-Feb-1 20:01
• Score: 5, Insightful
• Thread
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?
David Crawford
By Motherfucking Shit
•
2017-Feb-1 20:08
• Score: 4, Interesting
• Thread
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
By GrumpySteen
•
2017-Feb-1 20:11
• Score: 5, Informative
• Thread
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:Gulty until proven Innocent Evidence
By kogut
•
2017-Feb-1 20:21
• Score: 4, Informative
• Thread
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.
Irony
By Dunbal
•
2017-Feb-1 20:36
• Score: 3
• Thread
In an ironic twist of fate, the perpetrator committed the arson in an attempt to collect money to pay his medical bills.