Opening Case Data from a Pacemaker Leads to an Arrest MIS On September 19, 2016, a fire broke out at Ross Compton's home in Middletown, Ohio. Compton informed law enforcement that he awoke to find his home on fire. Authorities noted that before Compton escaped from his house, he packed some of his clothes and other belongings in a suitcase. He put anything that did not fit in his suitcase in other bags. He also took his computer and the charger for his pacemaker. (A pacemaker is a small device placed in the chest or abdomen to help control abnormal heart rhythms.) He then broke through a window with his cane and threw his suitcase and bags out of it. The blaze ended up causing $400,000 of damage. Fire department investigators determined that the fire originated from multiple locations within the house, leading them to conclude that the fire resulted from arson. In addition, investigators said Compton's house smelled of gasoline and that his account of what happened was inconsistent with the available evidence. Investigators had to make the case for arson and insurance fraud. They realized that they had a way to corroborate how much Compton was exerting himself and for how long before he escaped the fire: Compton's pacemaker. Once police learned about Compton's pacemaker, they obtained a search warrant for the data recorded on it. They believed that the data would reveal his heart rate and cardiac rhythms before, during, and after the fire. Medical technicians downloaded the data-the same data that would routinely be retrieved from a pacemaker during an appointment with a physician--from the device. Law enforcement officials then subpoenaed those records. The data did not corroborate Compton's version of the events that occurred that night. Authorities alleged that the data revealed that Compton was awake when he claimed to be sleeping. In addition, a cardiologist reviewed the data and concluded that Compton's medical condition made it unlikely that he would have been able to collect, pack, and remove numerous large and heavy items from the house, exit his bedroom window, and carry the items to the front of his residence during the short period of time that Compton had indicated to the authorities. In late January 2017, a Butler County, Ohio, grand jury indicted Compton on felony charges of aggravated arson and insurance fraud for allegedly starting the fire. Compton pleaded not guilty to the charges the following month. Compton's defense attorney filed a motion to suppress the pacemaker data evidence as an unreasonable seizure of Compton's private information. Prosecutors argued that police have historically obtained personal information through search warrants and that doing so for a pacemaker should not be treated differently. For example, law enforcement can use legally obtained blood samples and medical records as evidence. Tnttinath data dostane Investigators have also recently used data from other smart devices, such as steps counted by activity trackers and queries made to smart speakers, to establish how a crime was committed, In Connecticut, for example, Richard Dabate was charged with murdering his wife after police built a case based in part, on the victim's Fitbit data. (See the opening case in Chapter 8.) Despite Compton's attorney's arguments to the contrary, Butler County Judge Charles Pater held that the data from Compton's pacemaker could be used against him in his upcoming trial. Compton had been free on his own recognizance since his indictment, but he did not appear for a pretral hearing in Butler County Common Pleas Court Judge Charles Pater revoked Compton's bond. In late July 2018, Compton was back in police custody. This case was the first in which police obtained a search warrant for a pacemaker. If a person is dependent on an embedded medical device, should the device that keeps him alive also be allowed to incriminate him in a crime? After all, the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects a person from being forced to incriminate himself or herself. When Ross Compton had a pacemaker installed, he, as an individual, had a constitutional right to remain silent. However, the electronic data stored in his pacemaker eventually led to his arrest and subsequent indictment on charges of arson and insurance fraud. In Compton's case, the data were obtained from a device inside his body rather than a device in his home or worn on his wrist. In March 2019, the Butler County judge ruled that using pacemaker data was not stealing personal information. That is, data are not considered more protected or more private by virtue of its personal nature or where it is generated or stored. Defense attorneys are appealing the judge's decision to the 12th District Court of Appeals. A new trial date for Compton has not been set The more connected, convenient, and intelligent our devices become the more they have the potential to expose the truth. There is nothing new about consumers using tracking and recording devices. Each day, all of us leave revealing data trails-called "data exhaust- and prosecutors are realizing how valuable these data can be in solving crimes. In addition, new data sources are constantly emerging. For example, autonomous (self-driving) cars may record our speed, distance traveled, and locations. Homes can tell which rooms are occupied, and smart appliances such as refrigerators can track our daily routines. Significantly, all of these different types of data can be used as incriminating evidence, These technologies represent a new frontier for criminal litigation and law enforcement. In a time when consumers constantly reveal intimate data, perhaps privacy is becoming a thing of the past. The Compton case may be one of the first Internet of Things (see Chapter 8) prosecutions, but it certainly will not be the last. Since Compton's arrest, Ohio police departments have used similar data in two homicide investigations. If other courts accept Judge Pater's ruling on the admissibility of Compton's pacemaker data, then consumers might have to accept the reality that using smart technologies may cause them to forfeit whatever is left of their privacy. Sources: Compiled from L. Pack, "Is Using Pacemaker Data Stealing Personal Information"? Judge in Middleton Arson Case Says No," Middleton Journal-News, March 7. 2019, L. Pack, Arson Suspect in Unique Case Featuring Pacemaker Data Is Back in Custody, Middleton Journal-News, July 24, 2018 L. Pack. "His Pacemaker Led to Paleru Now own Journal News, January 1. The Electronic Frontier Foundation released a statement that Americans should not have to make a choice between health and privacy (www.eff.org/issues/medical-privacy). Do you agree with this statement? Why or why not? Support your answer. 2. As we noted in Chapter 1, you are known as Home misho ta