Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): his name and fingerprints. After obtaining this information, Holland was advised of his Miranda rights, and upon invoking his rights, the interview ceased. Several hours later, when the police determined that Holland had given them a false name (his fingerprints did not match the name Holland gave to the police), a detective went to Holland’s cell and asked Holland for his real name, which Holland provided. Holland moved to suppress this statement. The Florida Supreme Court, relying on this Court’s opinion in Avila v. State, 545 So.2d 450, 451 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (concluding that a question aimed at discovering the real name of a defendant is not an interrogation within the scope of Miranda ) and the Fifth District’s opinion in State v. McAdams, 559 So.2d 601, 602 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990) (<HOLDING>), concluded that because the detective’s 
 Holding statements: (A) holding a social security number is not private (B) holding that a defendants use of a persons name and social security number without permission constituted the use of a means of identification without lawful authority (C) holding that basic identification data such as name age current address and social security number is not generally subject to miranda (D) holding that although the social security number in the information and the social security numbers in the previous convictions did not match the rest of the identifying information  the first and last name and date of birth  did match and was sufficient to establish the defendants identity particularly in light of the fact that the defendant did not claim he was not the individual named in the previous convictions (E) holding that a social security disability determination is a legal proceeding
Output (English): holding that a defendants use of a persons name and social security number without permission constituted the use of a means of identification without lawful authority