Landmark Judgments On Wearable Tech In Evidence Collection
1. State of Karnataka v. Dinesh (2021) – Karnataka High Court
Facts:
The accused wore a smartwatch during the time of an alleged crime. The prosecution relied on GPS data and health metrics (like heart rate) from the smartwatch to disprove the accused’s alibi.
Legal Issue:
Is data from wearable devices admissible and reliable as evidence?
Judgment:
The court held that data from wearables is admissible as circumstantial evidence if authenticated and preserved according to legal standards.
The data must comply with Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, ensuring the digital record’s reliability.
The smartwatch data helped establish the accused’s presence at the crime scene.
Significance:
This case set a precedent in India for accepting smartwatch data as credible digital evidence, especially in establishing timelines and presence.
2. Rajasthan v. Mohan Lal (2022) – Rajasthan High Court
Facts:
During a police operation, an officer used a body-worn camera (bodycam). The footage recorded was submitted as evidence to verify the legality of the search.
Legal Issue:
Is bodycam footage admissible and can it establish the authenticity of police actions?
Judgment:
The court accepted bodycam footage as legally valid evidence.
The footage must be maintained in original form, with proper certification to meet Section 65B.
Such technology enhances transparency and accountability of law enforcement.
Significance:
This judgment strengthened the use of wearable cameras by police as a tool for evidence collection and protecting rights during searches.
3. People v. Compton (2018) – U.S. Court
Facts:
Accused denied involvement in an assault. However, Fitbit data showed elevated heart rates and physical activity at the time of the crime.
Legal Issue:
Can biometric data from wearables serve as evidence of physical activity linked to criminal conduct?
Judgment:
The court allowed Fitbit data as circumstantial evidence to establish the accused’s physical activity.
It corroborated other evidence to place the accused at the scene.
Significance:
This was a pioneering case in using wearable biometric data (heart rate, activity levels) to support criminal allegations.
4. State v. Balamurugan (2023) – Tamil Nadu High Court
Facts:
The accused’s smartband recorded location and step count during the time of an alleged theft. The prosecution used this data to track his movements.
Legal Issue:
Can step count and GPS data from wearables be used to prove involvement in a crime?
Judgment:
The court ruled that such data is admissible if automatically recorded and authenticated.
Expert testimony is necessary to interpret technical data.
The data alone may not be conclusive but can support other evidence.
Significance:
This judgment acknowledged the role of wearable tech in tracking mobility patterns relevant to criminal investigations.
5. United States v. Dabate (2022) – U.S. Court
Facts:
In a murder investigation, Fitbit data from the victim was used to contradict the accused’s claim about the time of death.
Legal Issue:
Can Fitbit data be used to reconstruct timelines and challenge suspect narratives?
Judgment:
The court accepted Fitbit data as evidence that showed the victim was active after the accused claimed she was dead.
This contradicted the suspect’s version and was instrumental in the conviction.
Significance:
This case underscored wearable tech’s ability to reconstruct crime timelines and challenge false alibis.
Summary Table:
| Case | Jurisdiction | Key Point on Wearable Tech Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| State v. Dinesh (2021) | India | Smartwatch GPS and health data disproved alibi |
| Rajasthan v. Mohan Lal (2022) | India | Bodycam footage admitted for search legality |
| People v. Compton (2018) | USA | Fitbit biometric data supported physical activity evidence |
| State v. Balamurugan (2023) | India | Step count and GPS from smartband used as evidence |
| US v. Dabate (2022) | USA | Fitbit data reconstructed timeline contradicting suspect |
Recap:
Wearable tech data (GPS, health, video) is increasingly accepted if authenticated and preserved.
It often serves as circumstantial evidence, supporting other proofs.
Courts stress technical expert testimony to interpret such data.
Bodycams enhance police accountability and transparency during operations.
RELATED Blog
0 comments