Hiibel is a United States Supreme Court decision. It applies in the whole country.
Did you even read the cite? Here, I’ll quote it again;
You know, I don’t plan on burning any American flags any time soon, but I am grateful for those who endured consequences large or small to establish and uphold the principle involved. They needn’t all be celebrated in the fashion of Rosa Parks. Hell, they needn’t all have comported themselves with any dignity while doing so.
They didn’t have a legitimate reason to stop/detain, so the cite doesn’t apply. Cops have to have a legally allowed reason to detain someone, and they did not in this case.
It applies to the whole country in which stop-and-identify laws exist. CA does not have one, therefore the ruling is irrelevant to CA law.
They had received a call of public sex occurring. That is a legitimate reason to stop.
Thus they had, per the understanding of people who actually work in criminal defense law in CA, the authority to demand identification and legally hold someone for a reasonable amount of time to determine their identification.
Arrest first, determine the charge later? Ah, Louis Renault would be proud.
Smapti, I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship.
No it’s not, because it was a misdemeanor, and was not occurring when the cops arrived. This means it is not a legitimate reason to detain, according to the law. The cops acted unlawfully.
The cops did not have enough information to determine whether it was a misdemeanor or not until they had investigated. It is not the role of the cops to decide what offense people should be charged with, unless you’ve now switched sides and are arguing that the police should have more power than they currently do.
She objected because she didn’t believe the cops were justified in demanding her ID. And she was right. They didn’t.
I’m not sure why you think she was only right “technically”. From her vantage point, the cops had no reason to suspect her of prostitution.
Just to be crystal clear, and not that you said otherwise, I am not a lawyer. Bricker is the legal expert; for me it’s only an avocation. 
Yes they did. The only information they had was that an act of public lewdness was reported. That is a misdemeanor.
Either way, as long as you’re making the gaucamole.
They had received a report that two people were having sex in a car. That could merely be public lewdness. It could also be a second offense. Or it could be non-consensual. Or one of the people involved could be a minor. Any of those potentialities could make it a felony, and the police have no idea whether that is the case unless they investigate. What it does give them is reasonable suspicion that a crime has occurred, which gives them the right to investigate and to demand identification.
They only had reasonable suspicion that a misdemeanor had occurred. They did not have reasonable suspicion that any of these things that would make it a felony had occurred. No reasonable suspicion it was a 2nd offense, no reasonable suspicion it was not consensual, no reasonable suspicion one of the people was a minor (especially when they arrived and could see the people involved, who were obviously not minors). Because that reasonable suspicion did not exist, they acted unlawfully by detaining Watts. They have the right to ask questions; they do not have the right to detain, in this case.
You are incorrect, and you are defending the party that acted unlawfully.
That is your personal opinion, which contradicts case law.
They didn’t detain anyone for the report of public sex.
They detained someone for refusing to identify herself in the course of an investigation, which, per the above cite, is entirely within their authority.
Please state the case law that obligates a cop to fully assess the evidence and determine what criminal charge is to be levied against any potential arrestees before initiating an investigation.
This is incorrect. Your cite was discussing circumstances in which the cops were performing a lawful detainment – it did not discuss in which cases cops are allowed to detain someone. This detainment was unlawful.
Is there no value in establishing practical limits to what actions police may or may not take with regards to the people whom they protect and serve?
Suppose a person fitting your description was reported to be selling narcotics outside a school. They stop you and decide to perform a cavity search. Find nothing because they got the wrong guy. Let you go.
You’d be okay with that as long as you had a court with whom to redress your detention and search?
Now, before you say, “Yeah, but asking name =/= cavity search!”. And you’re right. But the reason you are not subject to cavity searches at random stops is the same reason you don’t have to provide your name and address to police without probably cause that would stand up to existing laws. Because you should not have to wait for your day in court to be retro-actively protected by laws AFTER they’ve already been violated.