Between the item one and item two of your list, there's a middle ground best described as “this could be the guy, but we're not sure”. In that circumstance, there has been no arrest, the subject is free to leave, but there is a possibility he's the guy. It's not uncommon under those conditions to continue the investigation looking to compile sufficient evidence pointing at the individual that the level of interest arises to the point where there's a decision to take the subject into custody. In those circumstances, where the police have not yet focussed on a particular suspect, interviews are sometimes conducted in places like hotels, etc. Those are consensual, non-custodial interviews, and no Miranda warning is required. At the point where there's a focus on that individual, or that individual is no longer free to leave, the Miranda requirement is triggered. About ten years ago, San Diego had a kidnap-murder case where a couple of days of hotel interviews were conducted prior to arrest. “Person of interest” would be an appropriate description of the subject at that time.
I agree, it's not a formal status, but in the above circumstances, and in similar situations where a desire to avoid alerting the individual in question to just how much is known and how much trouble he's in (provoking him to flee), it's a useful category.
That said, it makes no sense in the L.A. situation, because the guy's in custody. “Suspect” is the operative phrase there.
Thank you.
I would imagine, since he was arrested just hours ago, his status will quickly change, after all their ducks are neatly in a row.
For those who dislike the term, "Person of interest" rest assured, it will formally change to suspect shortly, and my bet, already has as far as the investigators are concerned.
Be interesting to see if there are any more vehicle arson fires tonight.