State of Ohio v. Ross Compton: Internet-enabled medical device data introduced as evidence of arson and insurance fraud
| Published date | 01 July 2020 |
| DOI | 10.1177/1365712720930600 |
| Date | 01 July 2020 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
The International Journal of
Evidence & Proof
State of Ohio v. Ross
2020, Vol. 24(3) 321–328
ª The Author(s) 2020
Compton: Internet-enabled
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
medical device data
DOI: 10.1177/1365712720930600
journals.sagepub.com/home/epj
introduced as evidence of
arson and insurance fraud
Marie-Helen Maras
John Jay College of Criminal Justice, NY, USA
Adam Scott Wandt
John Jay College of Criminal Justice, NY, USA
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 evi-
dence 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 pro-
fessionals and warrant public debate.
Keywords
Arson, insurance fraud, Internet of things, pacemaker, right to privacy
Corresponding author:
Marie-Helen Maras, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, 524 W 59th St, New York, NY 10019, USA.
E-mail: mmaras@jjay.cuny.edu
322
The International Journal of Evidence & Proof 24(3)
The Internet-of-Things (IoT) is a term used to describe the connection of everyday objects to the Internet
in order to enable the real-time and remote monitoring of property, people, plants and animals, and the
vast collection, storage, use and transfer of data about them, in order to provide owners and users of the
device with a service (Maras, 2015). Even medical devices, such as pacemakers and defibrillators, have
become part of the IoT. IoT medical devices were created to improve efficiency and quality of life, and
provide everyday conveniences to the user. These devices collect, store and share significant quantities
of personal and health data about the user.
Data from IoT devices can be (and have been) introduced as evidence of a crime, serve as an alibi and
support and/or refute the testimony of witnesses, victims and suspects (Maras and Wandt, 2019; Maras,
forthcoming). For example, data from an IoT wearable device, FitBit, which measures and monitors
physical activity, exercise and sleep patterns, has been used to refute an allegation of sexual assault and
has been admitted as evidence in murder trials (Dancyger, 2018; Lartey, 2017; Privacy International,
2019; Smiley, 2019; Syder, 2015). In 2017, data from a medical device was introduced in a case as
evidence of a crime and to refute the testimony of the suspect, Ross Compton. Particularly, in State of
Ohio v Ross Compton,1 for the first time, data from an IoT medical device—an implanted pacemaker—
was used to charge the defendant with arson2 and insurance fraud.3
Facts of the case
In September 2016, 59-year-old Ross Compton reported a fire to the alarm company after the company
called him to inquire about a loss of power in the home.4 Compton instructed the company to contact 911
(the emergency telephone number for the United States) and report the fire.5 First responders were
dispatched to Compton’s home. Compton informed authorities that he woke up in the middle of the night
to find his house was on fire, hastily collected his belongings, broke the window, threw his belongings
out of the window and exited his home.6
The investigation
The investigation of the fire revealed that fires originated from multiple locations in the house and traces
of gasoline were found in the home pointing to arson.7 Investigators also found traces of gasoline on
Compton’s clothes and shoes.8 The investigation further revealed that Compton had a medical condition,
requiring the use of an ‘external heart pump . . . and implanted cardiac pacing device (i.e., pacemaker).’9
Given Compton’s medical condition, the timeline of events that Compton provided were deemed ‘highly
improbable’ by a cardiologist.10 Due to inconsistencies in Compton’s story and the evidence obtained
from the arson investigation, a search warrant was sought and obtained in October 2016, for Compton’s
cellphone and data from his pacemaker.11 Pursuant to the search warrant, Compton was compelled to go
1. State of Ohio v Ross Compton, Case No. CR 2016-12-1826.
2. Compton was charged with aggravated arson pursuant to § 2909.02(A)(2) of the Ohio Revised Code, which holds that ‘[n]o
person, by means of fire or explosion, shall knowingly . . . [c]ause physical harm to any occupied structure’.
3. Compton was charged with insurance fraud pursuant to § 2913.47(B)(1) ‘any written or oral statement that is part of, or in
support of, an application for insurance, a claim for payment pursuant to a policy, or a claim for any other benefit pursuant to a
policy, knowing that the statement, or any part of the statement, is false or deceptive’ with the intention of defrauding or
knowingly facilitating fraud.
4. Compton, above n. 1 at 2 (Motion to Suppress, 5 May 2017).
5. Compton, above n. 1.
6. Compton, above n. 1. See also Wootson...
To continue reading
Request your trial