He’s quiet, stealthy, rather unobserved, and all-knowing. He’s solved a steadily growing number of cases, and is only further advancing his techniques. He’s somewhat new to the detective life, but has already played an important role in several cases across the U.S. You may be asking, who is this real-life James Bond? (And is he cute?)
My answer? Check your wrist. Wearable devices, such as FitBit, Apple Watch, and high-tech watches (like Garmins), are the new detective in town. While there is much debate about the legal permissibility of evidence collected by these devices, the fact remains that these small contraptions worn on the wrist by many Americans collect massive amounts of data that can aid in solving cases of a wide variety (Chauriye, 495). To see just a few cases in which FitBit data alone has played a vital role, check out the map below:
Yet, what does the increasingly ubiquitous role of wearable technology in legal concerns mean for the world at large? Is it a good thing? The answers to those questions are highly debated, but their consideration is of the utmost importance. Existing in a world of constantly advancing technology requires an understanding of how all this readily available technology impacts and influences daily life. Wearable technology has enjoyed wide-spread popularity among the U.S. population alone, for many viable reasons. Allowing these tiny devices to monitor your heart-rate, sleep cycles, total steps taken, and total distance traversed in a day allow for better understanding of one’s individual health. This understanding allows for improved health, as it becomes starkly clear how active and healthy one is on a daily basis (Chauriye, 496-97).
Many individuals have found these benefits worthwhile, and over time, only more FitBits and Apple Watches have miraculously sprouted on the wrists of people crossing the street, in class, and in various workplaces. However, some individuals have taken the view that wearable technology has a benefit beyond health concerns: that the massive amount of data collected by such devices can be used to play an instrumental role in legal processes.
It is true: using FitBit data when investigating cases of a wide variety (anything from murder to rape) allows for an increasingly accurate account of the events and can disprove false testimony. The case of Nicole (Nikki) VanderHeyden’s murder is just one example in which FitBit data was used to seek justice in what I would argue is a beneficial way. To see the discourse of events that led to Nikki VanderHeyden’s unfortunate and premature death, see the timeline below:
In Nikki VanderHeyden’s case, digital evidence played a role of the utmost importance. Prior to finding George Burch’s DNA on her sock, the primary suspect in the case was VanderHeyden’s boyfriend, Doug Detrie. However, through data found on Detrie’s FitBit and on Burch’s phone, Detrie was exonerated while Burch only became further implicated in VanderHeyden’s murder (“FitBit Could Prove A Man’s Innocence…”).
Such an example only elucidates the benefits of digital evidence (particularly that of wearable devices) in legal cases. However, there are concerns about the use of wearable technology in law. There are two main concerns about wearable technology’s increasingly prevalent role in legal cases: 1) that, without a warrant to search such devices, it violates privacy concerns, and 2) that some of the data may be inaccurate.
Many legal experts are wary of the use of wearable technology data in legal proceedings due to the relative lack of defined policy surrounding the issue. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that in order to search an individual’s cell phone, authorities must obtain a warrant. However, the Supreme Court’s most defined policy on wearable technology is that “the type of information stored on wearable technology is part of the consumer’s ‘virtual home’ and should be entitled to a wide degree of privacy,” meaning that because these devices store information that is of greater capacity than an individual would likely carry around in paper form (illiciting its classification as part of a “virtual home”), there are concerns of privacy when attempting to search devices (Augustine, 3). However, there is no federal policy necessarily requiring a warrant to search these wearable devices; rather, it is left up to the discretion of the states. Pat Augustine, one expert in the legal field, takes issue with this lack of definition regarding protected privacy in wearable technology. Augustine holds that because the average American is “unlikely to think about how stored data [on wearable devices] can be used…to incriminate them,” and that such devices are with consumers “everywhere they go, collecting data…[on] their daily lives,” it is necessary to require a warrant to search wearable devices (Augustine, 16).
Moreover, as noted in Nicole VanderHeyden’s case, not all data collected by these wearable devices is entirely accurate. Sleep data collected by FitBit is known to be incorrect by as much as 45 minutes, as observed on Detrie’s FitBit data in VanderHeyden’s case (“FitBit Could Prove A Man’s Innocence…”). Such inconsistencies give pause to those in the legal world, resulting in the impermissibility of some data that has potential to be somewhat incorrect.
The use of wearable technology presents society with a conflict: at what point do the benefits of using wearable technology in legal cases outweigh concerns of privacy? How can one protect privacy and reap the benefits of using wearable technology to solve ambiguous cases?
One possible solution, as suggested by Pat Augustine, is to require warrants in order to search wearable devices. Meanwhile, it is important to find a solid middle ground, in which privacy concerns are protected while allowing for the use of wearable technology in pursuing justice. Where this middle ground exists is up for debate. In the meantime, I urge you to consider the implications of wearable technology and decide if its benefits are valid for you. As with all technology, wearable devices implicitly include many benefits and drawbacks. What one decides is appropriate or beneficial for their use is contingent on personal preference. In my view, the best approach to such a technologically advanced world is to consider all technology critically and charitably. Does it offer benefit to your life? Is that benefit worthwhile? I hope you consider these questions the next time you put on your FitBit or Apple Watch, or when deciding whether you would like to purchase a wearable device.
Works Cited
Alexander, Harriet. “Man Charged with Wife’s Murder after Her FitBit Contradicts His Timeline of Events.” The Telegraph, Telegraph Media Group, 25 Apr. 2017, www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/25/man-charged-wifes-murder-fitbit-contradicts-timeline-events/.
Augustine, Pat. “Wearable Evidence: Why the Pennsylvania Judiciary Should Require a Warrant to Search Wearable Technology.” Pittsburgh Journal of Technology Law and Policy, vol. 17, no. 1, 2017, pp. 1–16., doi:10.5195/tlp.2017.197.
Briquelet, Kate. “Fitbit Could Prove a Man’s Innocence. Google Could Send Another to Prison for Murder.” The Daily Beast, The Daily Beast Company, 27 Feb. 2018, www.thedailybeast.com/fitbit-could-prove-a-mans-innocence-google-could-send-another-to-prison-for-murder?ref=scroll.
Chauriye, Nicole. “Wearable Devices As Admissible Evidence: Technology Is Killing Our Opportunities To Lie.” Catholic University Journal of Law and Technology, vol. 24, no.2, Spring 2016, p. 495-528. HeinOnline.
Hauser, Christine. “In Connecticut Murder Case, a Fitbit Is a Silent Witness.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 27 Apr. 2017, www.nytimes.com/2017/04/27/nyregion/in-connecticut-murder-case-a-fitbit-is-a-silent-witness.html.
Hauser, Christine. “Police Use Fitbit Data to Charge 90-Year-Old Man in Stepdaughter’s Killing.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 3 Oct. 2018, www.nytimes.com/2018/10/03/us/fitbit-murder-arrest.html.
Whitworth, Kayna, et al. “Female Jogger in Seattle Uses Self-Defense Tactics to Fend off Brutal Assault.” ABC News, ABC News Network, 10 Mar. 2017, abcnews.go.com/US/female-jogger-seattle-defense-tactics-fend-off-brutal/story?id=46034147.