"Person of interest is a phrase used by law enforcement when announcing the name of someone involved in a criminal investigation who has not yet been arrested or formally accused of a crime. It is often used as a euphemism for suspect, and can sometimes result in a trial by media. It was used at least as early as the 1996 Atlanta Olympics bombing in reference to Richard A. Jewell. Its initial uses aroused controversy, but it has since seen increasingly regular use.[1] While terms such as suspect, target, and material witness have clear and sometimes formal definitions, person of interest remains undefined by the U.S. Department of Justice.[1]"

'Person of interest' – unfair or useful?
By Chelsea Phua - cphua@sacbee.com

Published 12:00 am PST Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Story appeared in METRO section, Page B2

Print | E-Mail | | Digg it | del.icio.us

Sacramento County sheriff's detectives called Agustine Munoz a "person of interest" after his estranged wife's body was found in a ditch in November.

Around the same time, Sacramento police called Miguel Carranza a "person of interest" after his ex-girlfriend was gunned down with her new boyfriend.

Carranza has since been named a homicide suspect. Munoz – now in jail on other charges – remains a "person of interest."

In recent years, the term "person of interest" has become a familiar part of the law enforcement lexicon across the country.

Critics say it's a nebulous euphemism for "suspect" that can tarnish someone's name when investigators are still a long way from gathering enough evidence for an arrest.

Law enforcement officials say it can mean "suspect." But they also use it for "accomplice," "witness" or "someone with key information about a crime."

Sacramento Sheriff John McGinness said the term is often no different from "suspect." He avoids using it, but his department has no policy about its usage. Sacramento police officers use it on an ad hoc basis, department spokesman Sgt. Matt Young said.

In 2006, the phrase made it onto Lake Superior State University's annual list of annoying words and phrases that should be banished from the English language for misuse, overuse and general uselessness.

"It's a broad and somewhat ambiguous term," said Floyd Feeney, a criminal law professor at UC Davis. By using a vague term, authorities may feel they are more in control of the situation, he said.

Young said the term is useful when police aren't sure what role someone plays in a crime.

"Just in fairness to people, we don't want to unfairly characterize them when we don't have evidence to indicate that they are likely responsible," Young said. "With a lot of gang violence, it's very convoluted. A person of interest could end up a witness, suspect or even a victim."

San Mateo Police Chief Susan Manheimer, a vice president of the California Police Chiefs Association, said the term encourages the "person of interest" to talk and cooperate with police.

"We are ensuring we are open to all clues," Manheimer said. "Until we are sure, we keep it as a person of interest."

That's a cop-out, said Sacramento civil rights attorney Stewart Katz: "They are afraid that if they use the term suspect, it may trigger other obligations." The investigating agency may think the term "doesn't sound as bad" and is neutral, but it's not, Katz said.

New York defense attorney Gerald Lefcourt says the term is "really slanderous."

Atlanta security guard Richard Jewell won an undisclosed amount of money from several media outlets after they and authorities named him a "person of interest" in the 1996 Olympic Park bombing in Atlanta.

Jewell was exonerated when the bomber was found and prosecuted, but, as Washington, D.C., attorney Mark Grannis explained, his name is forever associated with the crime.

"The term makes people feel as though it's an official category, like defendant," Grannis said.

Grannis' firm represents Steven Hatfill, whom former U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft called a "person of interest" during the federal investigation into the anthrax attacks that killed five people in 2001.

The term disturbed Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, who in 2002 probed use of the term by the federal Department of Justice.

The department told him, "There is no formal policy, level of evidentiary standard, procedure, or formal definition for the term 'person of interest.' "

Charles Miller, a Justice Department spokesman, said in a recent interview with The Bee that "person of interest" is not a term the department uses. He said the Hatfill case was the only time he knows of the department using it.

Usage of the term seemed to balloon after the Hatfield case.

A search of a database of major U.S. newspapers in the Lexis-Nexis research system showed that the term was rarely used until 2001. That year, fewer than 400 articles carried the term. In 2002, the number had more than doubled. By 2004, the term peppered thousands of stories.

Television stations and newspapers are also grappling with the term's usage. Bob Steele, the Poynter Institute's ethics and values scholar, advises journalists to respectfully and appropriately pressure law enforcement agencies to clarify what they mean.

"Absent some sort of definition, the term could carry implications beyond what it might be intended," Steele said.