Person of interest
"Person of interest" is a phrase used by law enforcement when announcing the name of someone involved in a criminal investigation who has not been arrested or formally accused of a crime. The phrase was adopted by the media and widely disseminated, thus most law enforcement agencies have picked up the term. It has no legal meaning, but it is a "catchy" term. 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] Though associated with the United States, the term is used by police forces in other countries.[2][3]
2001 anthrax attacks
The use of the term became widely critiqued when United States Attorney General John Ashcroft used it in a press conference when asked if Dr. Steven J. Hatfill was a suspect in the 2001 anthrax attacks case. The legal meaning of the phrase is (as of November 2004) subject to a lawsuit. It is unclear how Ashcroft's November 2004 resignation might affect the liabilities, if any, established by the suit.
Dr. Hatfill, who claims he has lost his professional reputation and employment prospects as a consequence of being publicly identified, alleges that the Justice Department and the FBI used the phrase as an excuse to implicate him personally, without commencing legal proceedings, to divert media attention from their own failure to charge a suspect for the attacks.
Definition
Normal Justice Department parlance for subjects of investigation includes "suspect," "subject" and "target." Each has specific meanings relevant to different levels of investigation. Senator Chuck Grassley, Republican of Iowa, 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:[4]
| “ | ... 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' |
” |
References
Cite error: Invalid <references> tag;
parameter "group" is allowed only.
<references />, or <references group="..." />- ↑ 1.0 1.1 Donna Shaw (February/March 2006). "Dilemma of Interest". American Journalism Review. Retrieved 29 July 2010. Check date values in:
|date=(help) - ↑ "Sex attacker Kirk Reid's criminal history". BBC News. 28 June 2010. Retrieved 29 July 2010.
- ↑ "RCMP scour area where Alberta couple's SUV found". CBC News. 17 July 2010. Retrieved 29 July 2010.
- ↑ "Anthrax: FBI Searches Forest for Clues to 2001 Attacks". Nuclear Threat Initiative. 13 December 2002. Retrieved 29 July 2010.
