"Person of interest" is a term used by law enforcement in the United States, Canada, and other countries when identifying someone possibly involved in acriminal investigation who has not beenarrested or formally accused of acrime.[1] It has no legal meaning, but refers to someone in whom the police and/or domestic intelligence services are "interested", either because the person is cooperating with the investigation, may have information that would assist the investigation, or possesses certain characteristics that merit further attention.[2]
While terms such assuspect,target, andmaterial witness have clear and sometimes formal definitions,person of interest remains undefined by theU.S. Department of Justice.[3]Unsub is a similar term which is short for "unknown subject" (used in the TV showCriminal Minds).Person of interest is usually used as aeuphemism forsuspect, and its careless use may encouragetrials by media.
With respect to terrorism investigations,Eric Lichtblau wrote in theNew York Times: "Law enforcement officials say that the term simply reflects the new tactics required to fight terrorism. But some legal scholars say officials are trying to create a more benign public image, even as their power expands."[4]
This phrase was first utilized by law enforcement in 1986, during the investigation of theGreen River Killer. It was coined by Fae Brooks, a member of the King County Sheriff's Department at the time of the investigation.
According to Eric Lichtbau inThe New York Times:
The term has an ugly history; in the 1960s American law enforcement officials began creating secret dossiers onVietnam War protesters,civil rights leaders and other persons of interest...The vaguely sinister term has been applied to targets ofterrorism investigations, the chief suspect in the murder of theBaylor basketball playerPatrick Dennehy andSteven J. Hatfill, the scientist who has figured prominently in the investigation into the2001 anthrax attacks...Attorney GeneralJohn Ashcroft is often credited with popularizing the person-of-interest label, having used it [in 2002] to describe Dr. Hatfill.[4]
The term was used widely in mass media at least as early as the1996 Atlanta Olympics bombing in reference toRichard A. Jewell. Its initial uses aroused controversy, but it has since seen increasingly regular use.[3] Jewell later remarked on the use of the term:
Question: Do you believe that the public will formulate the same idea about that person's involvement in criminal activity upon hearing the term "person of interest"? Is this just a euphemism, just another way of saying "suspect"?Jewell: I'd say so. The public knows what's going on. Because of what happened to me, things have changed. It has definitely changed the way the media in Atlanta refer to people that are arrested or are suspects. And I've seen it on some of the national channels likeFox News,NBC andCNN. They've all changed. Go back before 1996, at a shooting or a murder and see how they refer to the person whom they're arresting in the incident. Compare that with something that's recent and look at the difference. What happened to me is a factor in that change.[5]
The use of the term became widely critiqued whenUnited States Attorney GeneralJohn Ashcroft used it in apress conference when asked if Dr.Steven J. Hatfill was asuspect in the2001 anthrax attacks case. In 2002, Hatfill's attorney filed a complaint with theJustice Department'sOffice of Professional Responsibility, arguing that "the term is not recognized in law or criminal procedure and that Ashcroft did not have the right 'to preside over the public shredding of [Hatfill's] life. This is un-American. Mr. Ashcroft owes Dr. Hatfill an apology.'"[6] Hatfill sued the Department of Justice for violation of federalprivacy law; the case was settled in 2008 for $5.8 million.[7]
Normal Justice Departmentparlance for subjects of investigation includes "suspect", "subject" and "target". Each has specific meanings relevant to different levels of investigation.SenatorChuck Grassley,Republican ofIowa, wrote to the Attorney General for clarification of the unfamiliar phrase in September 2002. In December of that year,Nuclear Threat Initiative's Global Security Newswire summarized the response as follows:[8]
… the U.S. Justice Department has said that it did not intend for Hatfill to come under such intense media scrutiny by describing him has a "person of interest" in the anthrax investigation, according to department letters sent to Senator Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), which were released yesterday. … The department did not intend to cause any harm to Hatfill when it described him as a person of interest, Assistant Attorney General Daniel Bryant said in one of the letters. Instead, the department meant "to deflect media scrutiny" and "explain that he (Hatfill) was just one of many scientists" who had cooperated with the FBI investigation, Bryant said.Grassley said yesterday that he appreciates the department's replies to his inquiries. "I also appreciate the department's candidness that the action regarding Mr. Hatfill and his employment is unprecedented," Grassley said in a statement, and that "there is no … formal definition for the term 'person of interest.'"