Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I am wondering why LE has not named her a suspect, given the mountain of evidence stacking up against her. Why is she still only being called a 'person of interest'?
I am wondering why LE has not named her a suspect, given the mountain of evidence stacking up against her. Why is she still only being called a 'person of interest'?
Jbar, I think once you are a suspect then you are afforded certain rights that could slow down the investigation. I think it is SOP to stick with POI until the end.
Many people have been wondering...what is the difference between a "suspect" and a "person of interest" when it comes to criminal cases.
In the case of Craig Stebic, he has been formally named a "person of interest" into the disappearance of his wife, Lisa Stebic. Guess what? There is no difference between the two terms. The reason? Political correctness, lawsuits, police techniques, etc.
Are the Plainfield, Illinois police trying to evade the fact that Craig Stebic is REALLY A SUSPECT? Were they trying to make him feel better by using the term, "Person of Interest"?
That's food for thought.
So, what IS the difference?
(excerpts from American Journalism Review)
...Many law enforcement officials now use the vague term “person of interest” to describe people caught up in their investigations. That poses a challenge for journalists, who must try to convey a situation accurately without unfairly tarring someone’s reputation.
Once heard primarily in connection with federal cases involving terrorism and national security, many local police departments now use "person of interest" routinely in investigations ranging from murders to brush fires.
...Officially, "person of interest" means..well, nothing. No one has ever formally defined it — not police, not prosecutors, not journalists. The terms "accused," "allege," "arrest" and "indict" all are dealt with in the Associated Press Stylebook, but there is no listing for "person of interest." Similarly, the U.S. Attorneys' Manual — the official guide to federal criminal prosecution — uses the terms "suspect," "subject," "target" and "material witness," but "person of interest" gets no mention. So what are reporters to do?
Jim Kouri, a spokesman for the National Association of Chiefs of Police, says "person of interest" often is a euphemism for "suspect." If it's a suspect and you say 'person of interest,' you're using the euphemism to avoid problems down the line," says Kouri, a former New York housing police officer.
What problems?
Police sometimes "try to maintain that the person really isn't a suspect" in order to get him to agree to questioning without Miranda warnings, Kouri says. "You don't want the guy to lawyer up." Kouri says across the country, "it's the legal counsel telling police chiefs that they should instruct their officers and train them to use that term."
I don't think the wording here makes a bit of a difference.
No, I think there is a big difference between suspect and person of interest.
Oh I agree. I think certain statements you make as a suspect cannot be used if you are not mirandized..things like that. As opposed to a POI that does not need to be mirandized before they talk and what they say can be used.No, I think there is a big difference between suspect and person of interest.
Maybe it has already but I don't think so---- but why hasn't it changed from a missing person investigation to a murder investigation? Seems the wording here is part of what CA has a reason to be carrying on like a nut!!
Oh I agree. I think certain statements you make as a suspect cannot be used if you are not mirandized..things like that. As opposed to a POI that does not need to be mirandized before they talk and what they say can be used.
Maybe it has already but I don't think so---- but why hasn't it changed from a missing person investigation to a murder investigation? Seems the wording here is part of what CA has a reason to be carrying on like a nut!!
With a few exceptions, Miranda Rights are triggered when the person is taken into custody for questioning. Miranda Rights have everything to do with custody, and nothing to do with these vague and meaningless classifications such as POI and suspect. If that were the case, LE would be able to circumvent an individual's Miranda Rights by saying something as nutty as "Oh don't worry. You're a person of interest, not a suspect. Suspect? Do you suspect you're a suspect? Don't be silly. I don't need to remind you of your rights while I handcuff you to this table by your earlobes, against your will, because you're a POI, that's all you are! You're no suspect!"
Also Miranda Rights have nothing to do with the type of questions LE may ask an individual. Neither do these meaningless POI-suspect classifications, when it comes to question asking. Any question is fair game. There are no boundaries. There are no limits based on politeness, decency, crudeness or topic. Anything goes. The individual, as the saying goes, has the right to remain silent, though.
This has absolutely nothing to do with whether the individual has been labeled a suspect or POI.
So... to summarize.
1. LE may ask the individual any kind of question it can think of.
2. An individual in custody for questioning must be informed of their Miranda Rights.
That's it.
3. "POI" and "suspect" labels are irrelevant to this discussion.
4. Irrespective of this discussion, there is no meaningful distinction with being designated as a "POI" as opposed to a "suspect".
being arrested also triggers becoming a suspect.To me, POI is a vague pre-arrest cya term.Kinda feel like I am voting. Anyway, I can't see why it would matter what she is being called and I doubt it would change the parameters of the investigation.
Prior poster who said that Miranda is triggered by a person's being taken into custody makes sense. When a person of interest, suspect, defendant, lunatic-who's-presumed -innocent, individual no matter what the label, is taken into custody, that triggers Miranda.
If LE wants to circumvent the procedural requirements of the Miranda case,
I believe the terminology they would have to play with is --to try calling an "arrest" something else which erroneously implies that the individual is free to go.
By pretending a person is not in custody, LE avoids the necessity of giving the rights under Miranda. Not sayin they do that; Just that , that is how to play with Miranda.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0384_0436_ZS.html
Miranda v. Arizona
"Held:
1. The prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way, unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination. Pp. 444-491..."
I think the term POI is a vague term which gives LE wiggle room when needed prior to arrest.
When people are taken into custody they are no longer POI's they are suspects..
BTW, I think LE does circumvent a persons miranda rights with this terminology from time to time.
being arrested also triggers becoming[ing] a suspect.
You can be named a POI just by being spotted near the scene in which a crime was committed. They aren't saying that you DID anything - but that potentially you saw something, or know something and they want to talk to you.
A suspect means they have reason to believe you DID something, or had part in it.