IIRC there was a case in Texas(?) which made it to the Supreme Court, the result was that when a police officer was investigating a possible crime, they could ask you to identify yourself if they had reason to believe you were involved.
(IIRC there was a couple involved in a fairly loud argument, possible violence?, so someone called the police. Both people insisted nothing had happened, the man when asked for ID by the police said “I don’t have to tell you anything” and attempted to leave. He was arrested. )
That was Hiibel, out of Nevada. You have to ID yourself in certain situations yes, but are not required to have an ID on you.
In Ohio if charged with a minor misdemeanor, non arrestable, but can not or will not produce and ID or give your info, then it becomes an arrestable offense. This is non Hiibel related though.
So based on Hiibel, presumably -
The police officer had reason to stop and ask Dylan his name, based on reports of suspicious actions (depending on exactly what was reported?)
Bob had satisfied the requirements of the Hiibel law when he provided his name, regardless of his absence of documentation?
Forcing him to return to his hotel room and provide further evidence was in no way legal, unless there was real evidence he had committed a crime?
Of course, if he talked they way he sang in some of his old songs, I would assume public drunkenness would be a valid suspicion…
Hiibel was satisfied, but that does not mean we know ALL the facts governing the detention.
There’s no mention of force/coercion, maybe he agreed? Maybe the crime was arrestable, in and of itself, absent Hiibel, and Dylan was told if he went to his hotel and produced ID, then he would be let off with a warning or such??
Here is the Ohio law I talked about.
2935.26 Minor misdemeanor citation.
(A) Notwithstanding any other provision of the Revised Code, when a law enforcement officer is otherwise authorized to arrest a person for the commission of a minor misdemeanor, the officer shall not arrest the person, but shall issue a citation, unless one of the following applies:
(1) The offender requires medical care or is unable to provide for his own safety.
(2) The offender cannot or will not offer satisfactory evidence of his identity.
(3) The offender refuses to sign the citation.
Another point/example, under Ohio state law, municipalities can have a higher classification, Disorderly Conduct is an MM. IF told to stop/desist and the person does not, then it is elevated to an M-4, then it is an arrestable offense.
This is where the old “obstructing an officer” law comes in handy. If you are in public and a cop asks for your ID (which you almost certainly have in your wallet/purse) and you refuse to provide it, are you protecting your freedom or obstructing justice?
Nope, just the opposite. The Supreme Court in 2004 upheld “stop-and-identify” laws, which means the police can ask you for identification if they suspect you may have committed a crime and arrest you if you refuse. (Hiibel v Nevada)
And with regard to the original article the OP linked, take note that it comes from the Daily Mail… which is essentially the British equivalent of the National Enquirer. They sometimes takes liberties for the sake of storytelling.
Stop and identify held that a person must state his name (and possibly a couple of other pieces of identifying information) when asked by a police officer, not carry and produce identification on demand.
