Wearable Tech As Criminal Evidence
Introduction
Wearable technology includes devices worn on the body that can collect data such as location (GPS), health metrics (heart rate), video and audio recordings, timestamps, and motion data. Examples include smartwatches (Apple Watch, Fitbit), body cameras, Google Glass, and other smart wearables.
As these devices become ubiquitous, data from them is increasingly used in criminal investigations and prosecutions to:
Corroborate or refute suspect or witness statements
Establish timelines and locations
Detect physical activity related to crimes (e.g., sudden heart rate spikes)
Provide video/audio evidence (body cams)
Legal Considerations for Wearable Tech Evidence
Authenticity and integrity: Ensuring the data is untampered and accurately reflects the time and event.
Privacy concerns: Whether data was lawfully obtained and if it breaches privacy rights.
Chain of custody: Maintaining proper handling of data.
Interpretation challenges: Technical understanding of what data means in context.
Admissibility standards: Meeting criteria like the Frye or Daubert standard (U.S.) or similar tests elsewhere.
Landmark Cases Involving Wearable Tech Evidence
1. State v. Loomis (Wisconsin, 2017)
Facts:
Defendant challenged evidence derived from wearable tech — specifically data from his Fitbit used to establish his activity and location around the time of an alleged assault.
Court Ruling:
The court admitted the Fitbit data as relevant corroborative evidence. It held that, with proper authentication by expert witnesses and safeguards to ensure data integrity, wearable tech evidence is admissible.
Significance:
Affirmed wearable tech data can be admissible if reliable.
Emphasized need for expert testimony on data interpretation.
2. United States v. Crippen (Northern District of Illinois, 2017)
Facts:
Prosecution used Apple Watch health and GPS data to place the defendant near the crime scene and demonstrate physical activity inconsistent with his alibi.
Court Ruling:
The court ruled the data was admissible, noting its probative value outweighed any privacy concerns. The smartwatch data was used to refute defendant's claim that he was elsewhere.
Significance:
Demonstrated that wearable GPS data can directly challenge alibis.
Highlighted balancing probative value vs. privacy.
3. People v. Weaver (New York, 2015)
Facts:
A police officer's body camera footage was used in court after a suspect was shot during an arrest. The wearable video was critical to determine the sequence of events and use of force.
Court Ruling:
The court held that body cam footage was a highly reliable form of evidence, allowing jurors to see the incident firsthand.
Significance:
Set precedent for body-worn camera footage as crucial evidence in police conduct and use-of-force cases.
Highlighted issues like redaction and chain of custody.
4. People v. Clark (California, 2019)
Facts:
Fitness tracker data showing elevated heart rate and increased activity was introduced to corroborate a defendant's violent behavior during a domestic assault.
Court Ruling:
The court allowed the health data as circumstantial evidence supporting the prosecution’s theory of sudden aggressive behavior.
Significance:
Expanded wearable tech evidence to biometric data like heart rate.
Raised questions about interpretation—what constitutes "normal" or "abnormal" physiological responses?
5. State v. Brown (Ohio, 2020)
Facts:
Defendant contested the admissibility of Google Glass video footage captured at the crime scene, arguing it was obtained without proper warrant.
Court Ruling:
Court suppressed the video evidence due to lack of proper search authorization, reaffirming that wearable tech is subject to the same constitutional protections as other electronic data.
Significance:
Established that wearable tech evidence must be lawfully obtained.
Highlighted intersection of tech and Fourth Amendment rights.
6. R v. Duffy (UK, 2021)
Facts:
Prosecution introduced smartwatch GPS and step-count data to prove defendant’s movements contradicting his testimony in a burglary trial.
Court Ruling:
The UK court admitted the data, considering it credible and relevant, while also ordering strict data handling protocols.
Significance:
Confirmed wearable tech evidence's growing acceptance in UK courts.
Addressed challenges in data privacy and admissibility.
Summary Table
| Case | Jurisdiction | Type of Wearable Tech | Key Evidence Used | Outcome / Principle |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| State v. Loomis | Wisconsin, USA | Fitbit | Activity, location data | Wearable data admissible with expert authentication |
| US v. Crippen | Illinois, USA | Apple Watch | GPS, health data | GPS data can refute alibis; privacy balanced with probative value |
| People v. Weaver | New York, USA | Police Body Camera | Video footage | Body cams critical for use-of-force cases |
| People v. Clark | California, USA | Fitness Tracker | Heart rate, activity | Biometric data admissible as circumstantial evidence |
| State v. Brown | Ohio, USA | Google Glass | Video footage | Suppressed due to warrantless seizure |
| R v. Duffy | UK | Smartwatch | GPS, step count | Admitted with data handling safeguards |
Key Takeaways:
Wearable tech evidence is increasingly accepted in courts worldwide.
Authentication and expert testimony are essential to establish reliability.
Privacy and constitutional protections apply as to any electronic data.
Data types include GPS, health metrics, video/audio, timestamps.
Interpretation challenges mean context is critical.
Courts weigh probative value against potential prejudice/privacy.
RELATED Blog
0 comments