Posted on 07/25/2011 9:38:36 AM PDT by reaganaut
- A mystery man arrested on minor charges more than three weeks ago remains behind bars in Utah while law enforcement officials try to determine his true identity, which he refuses to reveal.
"This is really a strange case," said Lt. Dennis Harris with the Utah County Sheriff's Office. "He just doesn't want to be found."
The unidentified man, who has graying hair, a light beard and is believed to be in his 60's, was arrested on July 1 for trespassing in a parking garage.
He was booked into jail on three misdemeanor charges and has thwarted any chance of release, with or without bail, by refusing to identify himself.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
What is it a court decision or the Constitution.
the two are not the same and court decisions can be overturned. Pull the foot out of your mouth.
What is it a court decision or the Constitution.
The two are not the same and court decisions can be overturned. The USSC is wrong on many issues and that is why people work to change it.
That is your OPINION. Your opinion runs counter to the Supreme Court, and the laws and state Constitution of Utah.
So, he's in jail, like a beligerant child, until he wants to conform to the laws and Constitution of this state. And again, he's free to simply say "My name is ...." and he can walk. If he wants to rot behind bars, this is his decision.
That is your OPINION. Your opinion runs counter to the Supreme Court, and the laws and state Constitution of Utah.
- - - -
No it isn’t, it is the law. All states (including Utah) allow for a person to be tried as a John or Jane Doe.
The statute only makes failure to give name a Class B Misdemeanor, this man should have been given a lawyer (btw, you aren’t a lawyer are you because an attorney wouldn’t make such a stupid comment), and the lawyer is under no compulsion to reveal his clients name. He can be tried as a “John Doe” and should have already been arraigned and given counsel which doesn’t appear to have happened.
BTW, my husband researched the Utah code and found that the OFFICER is guilty of the same class misdemeanor for not bringing the man before a judge ‘swiftly’.
If he does not give his name (according to the law) he is guilty of a misdemeanor, that does not mean he can be held without charges indefinitely (false imprisonment). What you are advocating is a communist tactic of control.
Requiring a name and DOB from a person arrested is following the Constitution.
- - - - -
What cracker jack box did you get your law degree from? I’m only a paralegal (hubby is the attorney) and I know that is not true.
Given the option of 'control' versus 'anarchy' - I'll chose control every time. I'm a proponent of order, you prefer chaos. This is not an onerous chore, providing simple identification. He is not claiming mental incompetence, and there is no requirement for producing 'legitimate' documentation.
And once again - he can leave any time he wants. He simply has to say "My name is ....". Until then, he is in a self-imposed 'holding pattern'.
I’m not advocating anarchy, I’m advocating the CONSTITUTION. He should be given his due process (which he is apparently being denied) and tried for not giving his name.
There is nothing legal about holding someone indefinitely without charges for not giving their name. BTW, the Utah statute involved makes no mention of indefinite ‘holding pattern’, and in fact says the opposite that he should be brought before a magistrate or judge ‘swiftly’.
For the last time, he does not LEGALLY have to give his name in order to be tried.
FWIW, I wouldn’t give my name either, would demand a lawyer, and insist on being tried as Jane Doe, just on principle. And yes I know it would be a class B misdemeanor.
Get back to me when you learn to read the law rather than falsely imprison people.
Then c'mon down to Utah - we are building lots of new prisions. The one by Thanksgiving Point (American Fork) is being moved to a nice, larger facility to accomodate more convicts. I'd suggest bringing your own soap, I understand the soap provided doesn't have a lot of moisturizer.
Same crackerjacks box you did. If it weren’t true then no one would have to do it and no one would have a criminal record would they, genius.
I go through Utah every year. And they cannot imprison me (or put me in anything but county jail) indefinitely without a trial, THAT is constitutional (due process).
And I would LOVE to sue the State of Utah for false imprisonment.
I would be fine paying the fine for the misdemeanor, but that is all they could do, they couldn’t hold me permanently. You don’t seem to understand the basics of Constitutional law do you.
Epic fail on your part. They don’t have to give their names, and most times they don’t, the names are found out from another source (ID, previous record, friends, neighbors, accomplices) idiot.
Now SHOW me where in the constitution it requires that we give our names and DOB? specific source.
Article 1. Section 1. “All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States...”
All state constitutions grant similar authority to their respective legislatures. No constitution lists every single law that a legislature can pass. That’s why there are court battles.
As to your first paragraph, I’m afraid the epic fail is on your part because you have no clue what you are talking about.
Good bye.
Read the Constitution. Article one section one gives the congress authority to legislate. State constitutions give similar powers.
I’m sure that you can figure out the rest of it. If not too bad.
Good bye.
Misreading of the Constitution. That allows states to pass their own laws. Utah did. However, State laws cannot violate the constitution (which does have an amendment guaranteeing due process -4th), so the man cannot be refused due process because of a state law.
Nowhere in the Constitution (as you claimed) is giving ID and DOB required. This man is exercising his Miranda rights (to remain silent) and should be allowed his due process regardless of his name being given.
Also, all states allow for people to be tried as John or Jane Does, thus no ID required for trial.
Apparently, I know what I am talking about more than you do.
Until you give me PROOF that the US Constitution REQUIRES ID and DOB the fail is yours.
So why are you at Free Republic a true conservative would not think that way nor would they say it. According to you government can do anything, you are in the wrong place.
You're a unimaginative droning sheep and part of this country's problem.
"It's the law, it's the law, it's the law" like some broken record. Try thinking for yourself and develop just one critique of the system in your life.
Good grief, how can someone go through life as such an anal conformist and authority worshiper?
So, in your world - the laws are a touchy, feely sort of thing? You follow them, if they are convenient, and if they are of advantage to you, or your opinion?
Are you an adult, or an adolscent 12 yr old girl? You would have a country rule itself upon your feelings? That’s what Obama wants to do, is to arbitrariy change the law/constitution to suit his needs. If he can’t coerce congress to raise the debt limit, he wants to simply declare it to be raised by executive fiat, through the 14th Ammendment (sect. 4).
This may come as a shock to you, but we are a country based upon the rule of law. If you don’t like the law; change the law. If the law is unconstitutional, challenge the law on that basis. If you like the idea of anarchy, perhaps you could look to countries that promote anarchy, and see how well it’s working for them.
Blah,blah, blah. I’ve seen your posts on this site for years and have yet to see you object to the application of any law or law enforcement tactic.
You’re a unimaginative droning sheep and part of this country’s problem.
Try thinking for yourself and develop just one critique of the system in your life.
Good grief, how can someone go through life as such an anal conformist and authority worshiper?
- - - - - - -
I have my suspicions as to how, and I suspect it has something to do with him living in Utah.
You know, it's really hard to debate someone, who makes up facts as they go along. You are either niave, or a liar - the Miranda rights are read to you so you are aware of your rights NOT to incriminate yourself.
If you don't likethe law, gee that's really tough. Challenge the legality of it, or work to repeal it. However, making uninformed blanket statements that have REPEATEDLY been shown that you are ignornat, is just irritating. Do you have ANY links, ANY references to support your stance - I mean other than "I don't like it"?
Whether an arrested person must identify herself may depend on the jurisdiction in which the arrest occurs. If a person is under arrest and police wish to question her, they are required to inform the person of her Fifth-Amendment right to remain silent by giving a Miranda warning. However, Miranda does not apply to biographical data necessary to complete booking.
Wiki synposis
15.^ In Pennsylvania v. Muniz, 496 U.S. 582 (1990), the Court cited the Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 12 quoting United States v. Horton, 873 F.2d 180, 181, n. 2 [CA8 1989]), the questions fall within a “routine booking question” exception which exempts from Miranda’s coverage questions to secure the “‘biographical data necessary to complete booking or pretrial services.’” — 496 U.S. at 601–602
16.^ The Fifth Amendment prohibits only communication that is testimonial, incriminating, and compelled; see United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27 (2000), at 34–38. Hiibel held that, in the circumstances of the case, a person’s name is not incriminating, and consequently is not protected by the Fifth-Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. — 530 U.S. at 34–38
This man is NOT being held as part of a sentence, he is being held until his identify is determined. He may, or may not have outstanding warrants. He may, or may not have priors. His right to silence does not include a 'right' to withhold your identity. So, please produce some court cases where your stance is supported.
You are the one making up facts not me. Miranda is not about self incrimination, that is the fifth amendment. Miranda consists of rights while being under arrest. Right to remain silent (which he has), right to an attorney (which seems to have been denied), and that the state will provide an attorney if he cannot afford one.
A state law does not overturn this man’s 4th amendment rights (due process). There is nothing in the statute (BTW, quit getting your legal facts from Wiki, I looked up the code itself) that says they can hold him indefinitely without trying him. Nothing. So either they try him as a John Doe (which Utah does do - looked that up as well) or they let him go. Real simple.
Links? the Constitution Bill of Rights, Utah legal code.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.