Your reasoning is faulty see post 131. He can’t be held for not giving his name.
Sure, he can; he is currently being held. You see, Utah is one of 15 states that have a adopted the Stop and identify statutes
In 13 states (Alabama, Delaware, Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New York, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Utah, Wisconsin), police “may demand” identifying information;
In states whose “stop and identify laws” do not directly impose penalties, a lawful arrest must be for violation of some other law, such as one to the effect of “resisting, obstructing, or delaying a peace officer”. For example, the Nevada “stop and identify” law challenged in Hiibel did not impose a penalty on a person who refused to comply, but the Justice Court of Union Township, Nevada, determined that Hiibel’s refusal to identify himself[24] constituted a violation of Nevada’s “obstructing” law.[25] A similar conclusion regarding the interaction between Utah’s “stop and identify” and “obstructing” laws was reached in Oliver v. Woods (10th Cir. 2000). and finally
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.