Hi, I'm sure we're all familiar with the recent Sup. Ct. Hiibel ruling
saying it's not unconstitutional for an officer to demand your name if he
stops you.
I'm wondering the law in California.

Falky foo wrote:
The court ruled that a LAW requiring individuals to identify themselves
was not unconstitutional. There's no such law in California, as you
noticed.

right, good point. They declared that a law specifying that one had to
answer an officer's identity question(s) wasn't unconstitutional. A few
years back CA had a law stating one had to give 'credible evidence' of one's
identity if stopped (such as showing a driver license) but that was struck
down by the Sup. Ct.

I take it then that California didn't try another type of law like that...??
Would that be in the penal code I assume? Not the gov't code?

Falky foo wrote:
The US Supreme Court specially did not say that a law someone to provide
documentation of identity would be allowed, so I assume that that
precedent
is still valid.
If you have access to Sheppard, try "vagrancy". I don't know which code
it would be under.