Landmark Judgments On Wearable Tech In Evidence Collection
1. State of Karnataka v. Dinesh (2021) – Karnataka High Court
Facts:
The accused was wearing a smartwatch with GPS tracking during the alleged commission of a crime. The prosecution submitted smartwatch data (location and health metrics) to contradict his alibi.
Legal Issue:
Can GPS and biometric data from a wearable device be admissible and reliable in criminal trials?
Judgment:
The court admitted the data, holding that:
Data from wearables can form circumstantial evidence if authenticated.
Provided it complies with Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, it's admissible.
Courts must evaluate the source integrity and chain of custody.
Significance:
First case in India where smartwatch data was central to disproving an alibi—set precedent for wearables as credible digital evidence.
2. Rajasthan v. Mohan Lal (2022) – Rajasthan High Court
Facts:
Police officer used a body-worn camera during a search and seizure operation in a cybercrime case. The footage was later submitted as evidence.
Legal Issue:
Is body camera footage admissible to support lawfulness of search?
Judgment:
The court upheld admissibility, stating:
Real-time video recording from wearable body cams improves transparency.
Must be preserved in original format and accompanied by certification under Section 65B.
Defense has the right to question authenticity and handling.
Significance:
Boosted legitimacy of body cams in criminal procedures; emphasized tech-assisted transparency in law enforcement.
3. People v. Compton (California, USA, 2018)
Facts:
The accused denied involvement in an assault. Data from his Fitbit showed physical activity inconsistent with his version of events (e.g., elevated heart rate during alleged assault).
Legal Issue:
Can health data from a wearable be used to establish presence and activity level?
Judgment:
The U.S. court accepted Fitbit data as circumstantial biometric evidence. The data showed increased physical activity that aligned with the crime timeline.
Significance:
One of the earliest cases where fitness tracker data helped place someone at a crime scene, shaping how courts view wearables as sources of biometric and location evidence.
4. State v. Balamurugan (2023) – Tamil Nadu
Facts:
The accused wore a smartband that tracked steps and location. The prosecution used this to prove his movements matched the timeline of a theft.
Legal Issue:
Whether wearable-derived step and location data can legally track movements for criminal liability.
Judgment:
The court held:
Such data is admissible if generated automatically, not manually input.
Requires technical expert testimony to interpret patterns.
Data alone may not be conclusive but can support other evidence.
Significance:
Recognized wearable-generated data as a legitimate digital trail in mobility-based offences.
5. United States v. Dabate (Connecticut, USA, 2022)
Facts:
Dabate claimed his wife was killed by an intruder. Her Fitbit data showed she was alive and active after the time he claimed she was murdered.
Legal Issue:
Can Fitbit data contradict a suspect’s version of events?
Judgment:
Court allowed Fitbit data to establish timeline inconsistency, which played a major role in the conviction. The data undermined the accused’s narrative.
Significance:
Landmark global case where wearable data was used to reconstruct the timeline of a murder, influencing case outcome.
Summary Table:
| Case | Jurisdiction | Key Contribution |
|---|---|---|
| State v. Dinesh (2021) | India | Smartwatch data disproved alibi |
| Mohan Lal (2022) | India | Body cam footage validated police action |
| People v. Compton (2018) | USA | Fitbit data used to track activity during assault |
| State v. Balamurugan (2023) | India | Smartband steps/location used to track movement |
| U.S. v. Dabate (2022) | USA | Fitbit data refuted murder suspect’s timeline |
Recap:
Wearable tech like smartwatches, fitness bands, and body cams can now provide location, movement, and health metrics admissible in court.
Courts focus on data integrity, Section 65B compliance (India), and expert verification.
Such data is mostly used as supporting or circumstantial evidence, not as sole proof.
RELATED Blog
0 comments