A man in Ohio was charged with arson and insurance fraud after data from his pacemaker did not support his story about how his house burned down.
The evidence from the pacemaker was taken on a warrant.
A lawyer from the Electronic Frontier Foundation is quoted in the ABA story at the link as saying that privacy interests in one’s health information were “eroded” by the decision. The statement suggests that privacy should override the state’s interest in prosecution.
Do you agree? Or is the need for a warrant enough protection for privacy relating to medical devices, as it is presumed to be for anything else for which a warrant is needed?