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 evidence 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 professionals and warrant public debate.

中文翻译：

---

俄亥俄州诉罗斯康普顿案：引入互联网医疗设备数据作为纵火和保险欺诈的证据

物联网设备生成的数据越来越多地被用作法庭证据。美国第一个涉及引入起搏器医疗数据作为纵火和保险欺诈证据的案件是俄亥俄州诉康普顿案。这篇文章的目的有三个。首先，文章探讨了这个案件，特别关注案件的事实和对被告提出的指控。其次，文章批判性地审查了初审法官在压制听证会上对起搏器证据的决定。在这次听证会上，法官裁定搜查和扣押没有侵犯被告的第四修正案权利，并允许输入起搏器数据作为对他不利的证据。第三，本文考虑了这一决定对未来涉及物联网 (IoT) 医疗数据的案例的影响。最终，物联网医疗设备数据的宪法保护以及这些设备的数据将被收集和用作证据的情况是目前需要法律和数字取证专业人士关注并值得公开辩论的问题。