The Rise of Smartwatch Data in Criminal Cases
On March 1st, the trial for a Connecticut man, Richard Dabate, finally reached the jury selection process nearly five years after the murder of his wife, Connie Dabate, in 2015. A few days before Christmas, Richard was found zip-tied to a kitchen chair, his wife shot dead in the basement. He told investigators that a masked man broke into their house, tied him up, and shot his wife. However, technology around the house contradicted his story, most importantly, his wife’s Fitbit. The fitness tracker showed that Connie had walked over 1,000 feet around the house during the time of the alleged attack; her last movements were tagged at 10:05 a.m., nearly an hour after her husband claimed she had been shot. Dabate’s lawyers attempted to have the evidence collected from his wife’s Fitbit suppressed for his trial, but the judge denied the motion.
The Dabate case is part of a larger trend of smartwatches playing key roles in criminal investigations and trials. In another 2015 case, a woman claimed she had been sexually assaulted during a break-in, but her Fitbit revealed she was up and moving around when she told detectives she had been sleeping. One of the detectives on the case acknowledged the Fitbit as critical evidence to dispute her claims, adding that they had been suspicious beforehand, but “the Fitbit made all the difference.” In 2018, Anthony Aiello was charged with the murder of his step-daughter, Karen Navarra, after the data on her Fitbit contradicted his story. Navarra’s heart-rate spiked during Aiello’s visit, then stopped being recorded by the device shortly after. Security footage also showed Aiello leaving after her Fitbit stopped detecting her heart-rate.
In the Aiello case, Fitbit declined to comment specifically on their decision to release Navarra’s data. Instead, they responded with the company’s privacy policy, which states that it complies with legal processes, such as search warrants, when it shares user data. Law enforcement generally appreciates the increase of available data. Although a search warrant is typically required to access these devices, officers can generally find and analyze electronic data faster than other evidence, such as DNA tests. Critics of the use of smartwatch data as evidence in trials have cited two main issues: problems with the reliability of the devices and conflicts with Fifth Amendment rights.
The reliability of this data, however, is not guaranteed. Fitbit and Garmin have disclaimers on their devices, with both companies pointing towards possible inaccuracies and stating they are not medical or scientific devices. Smartwatches measure heart rate through a process called photoplethysmography (PPG), which measures artery volume using light. Various studies have been conducted to examine the reliability of this method, and all have found that physical movement can weaken the pulse signal and reduce accuracy. This interference can be drastic, as one study found that “repeating interference signals caused by walking at 100 steps per minute can be indistinguishable from a heart rate of 100 beats per minute.”
The accuracy of smartwatch data, however, does not have to be on par with that of medical data to be useful in trials. This evidence is mostly used to help investigators piece together a timeline of events. When analyzing the data, investigators look for sudden bursts or lulls in activity, which suggests an attack or loss of consciousness, respectively. The data from smartwatches tends to be used to cast doubt on stories given by witnesses and defendants, not to lay out the case for investigators. Further, since physical movement reduces accuracy, determining when an individual wearing a smartwatch lost consciousness should be relatively reliable based on the heart rate measuring process outlined above.
Legal questions surrounding the collection of smartwatch data have mostly centered around the Fifth Amendment, with some critics going as far as comparing smart watch data to requiring someone to testify against themselves. However, like other new information collection and data analysis services such as 23andMe, smartwatch data is subject to warrants by police officers and the policies of data sharing that each company follows.
Overall, it appears smartwatch data is considered acceptable evidence in the courtroom and fair game to investigators, as courtrooms all over the country have allowed such evidence at trial. If consumers are concerned that data on their smartwatches could be used against them in court, they must be well-versed in the company’s privacy policy so they know if and when their data can be released.