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.