Persons of Interest

When filing our tax returns, we hope that some federal bureaucrat in a windowless room yawns while reviewing our most private financial information. No matter how much we may like to talk about ourselves, we would hate to arouse any interest whatsoever, and dread the notion that anyone from that office would like to “engage” us in further conversation.

Although IRS scrutiny may be unpleasant, being a “person of interest” to the Department of Justice, the FBI or other members of law enforcement can be downright devastating. Just ask Dr. Steven Hatfill, a scientist who aroused the interest of the FBI during the anthrax investigation. While the FBI would not label him a suspect, its use of the term “person of interest” hardly helped his reputation or eased the pain of constant scrutiny.

Richard Jewell did not particularly appreciate the notoriety received when Justice Department officials held press conferences expressing their “interest” in his possible connection to a bombing during the 1996 Olympics in Atlanta. Ultimately cleared in the investigation, he claimed that his life was ruined and sued several news organizations for defamation.

While out of court settlements with CNN, NBC and others eased Jewell’s pain to the tune of more than $500,000, it is not as easy to sue the federal government when it ruins your reputation. Protected by sovereign immunity, the United States of America may name names without the fear of libel suits by private citizens who must dodge enormous obstacles in suing the world’s greatest superpower.

Despite an alarming increase in press conferences that focus on “persons of interest” to the FBI and federal prosecutors, Justice Department guidelines purport to protect their “privacy and reputation interests” and “strive to avoid unnecessary public references to wrongdoing by uncharged third-parties.” Observing that “there is ordinarily ‘no legitimate governmental interest served’ by the government's public allegation of wrongdoing by an uncharged party,” the Justice Department admits that “it is not appropriate to identify” those under suspicion. (DOJ Guideline 9-27.760.) .

But why let picky guidelines ruin a perfectly good press conference? Paying lip service to these regulations, the feds now move their lips in a semantic game that ignores the privacy and reputation that their own guidelines were designed to protect.

By creating a totally new term for which there are no guidelines, the feds may now cast suspicion upon persons without the evidence to charge them. Rather than naming “suspects” and “targets,” federal authorities now label them as mere “persons of interest” and let public gossip fill in the suspicious blanks.

For “persons of interest” who are ultimately charged and convicted, there may be little compassion. But for innocent persons who have lost their reputations during the semantic games of government officials, compassion rarely translates into compensation. If the government can’t convict you in a court of law, it may more easily convict you in the court of public opinion.

Even the burden of proof is lighter on the TV news. In a court of law, persons are innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In the court of public opinion, persons are presumed guilty, even if they just happen to be “interesting.”