State of Ohio v. Ross Compton: Internet-enabled medical device data introduced as evidence of arson and insurance fraud

IF 0.7 2区 社会学 Q2 LAW International Journal of Evidence & Proof Pub Date : 2020-06-04 DOI:10.1177/1365712720930600
Marie-Helen Maras, A. S. Wandt
{"title":"State of Ohio v. Ross Compton: Internet-enabled medical device data introduced as evidence of arson and insurance fraud","authors":"Marie-Helen Maras, A. S. Wandt","doi":"10.1177/1365712720930600","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The data generated by Internet of Things devices is increasingly being introduced as evidence in court. The first US case involving the introduction of medical data from a pacemaker as evidence of arson and insurance fraud was State of Ohio v Compton. The purpose of this article is three-fold. First, the article explores this case, looking in particular at the facts of the case and the charges brought against the defendant. Second, the article critically examines the decision of the trial court judge during the suppression hearing for the evidence from the pacemaker. In this hearing, the judge ruled that the search and seizure did not violate the Fourth Amendment rights of the defendant and allowed the pacemaker data to be entered as evidence against him. Third, the article considers the implications of this decision for future cases involving Internet-of-Things (IoT) medical data. Ultimately, the constitutional protections of IoT medical device data and the circumstances under which the data from these devices will be collected and used as evidence, are issues that currently demand the attention of legal and digital forensics professionals and warrant public debate.","PeriodicalId":54168,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Evidence & Proof","volume":"24 1","pages":"321 - 328"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2020-06-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1365712720930600","citationCount":"8","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Evidence & Proof","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1365712720930600","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8

Abstract

The data generated by Internet of Things devices is increasingly being introduced as evidence in court. The first US case involving the introduction of medical data from a pacemaker as evidence of arson and insurance fraud was State of Ohio v Compton. The purpose of this article is three-fold. First, the article explores this case, looking in particular at the facts of the case and the charges brought against the defendant. Second, the article critically examines the decision of the trial court judge during the suppression hearing for the evidence from the pacemaker. In this hearing, the judge ruled that the search and seizure did not violate the Fourth Amendment rights of the defendant and allowed the pacemaker data to be entered as evidence against him. Third, the article considers the implications of this decision for future cases involving Internet-of-Things (IoT) medical data. Ultimately, the constitutional protections of IoT medical device data and the circumstances under which the data from these devices will be collected and used as evidence, are issues that currently demand the attention of legal and digital forensics professionals and warrant public debate.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
俄亥俄州诉罗斯·康普顿案:引入互联网医疗设备数据作为纵火和保险欺诈的证据
物联网设备生成的数据越来越多地被引入法庭作为证据。美国首例涉及引入起搏器医疗数据作为纵火和保险欺诈证据的案件是俄亥俄州诉康普顿案。这篇文章的目的有三个方面。首先,文章对本案进行了探讨,特别关注案件事实和对被告的指控。其次,文章批判性地审查了初审法院法官在抑制听证会上对起搏器证据的决定。在这次听证会上,法官裁定搜查和扣押没有侵犯被告的第四修正案权利,并允许输入起搏器数据作为对他不利的证据。第三,文章考虑了这一决定对未来涉及物联网(IoT)医疗数据的案件的影响。最终,物联网医疗设备数据的宪法保护以及这些设备的数据将被收集和用作证据的情况,是目前需要法律和数字取证专业人员关注的问题,值得公开辩论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
20.00%
发文量
15
期刊最新文献
Preponderance, proportionality, stepwise liability Stepwise liability: Between the preponderance rule and proportional liability The skewing effect of outcome evidence The economic case for conviction multiplicity What matters for assessing insider witnesses? Results of an experimental vignette study
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1