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.
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.