As I said, not all police agencies have the ability to look at photos during a traffic stop, and not everybody is in the system anyway, it's not like the movies. Most places do not allow officers to arrest for traffic violations in absence of certain other factors. The person not being able to be identified is one of those factors. Again, they can't just take your word for who you are and send you on your way without confirming the information.

In the Hiibel case the only charge was the fact that he did not provide his name. If he had provided his name, but the officer had another separate charge, then he still would have been able to arrest him. My comments are specifically referring to a situation where an officer already has probable cause to charge you with a crime, but is unable to confirm your identity. Traffic stops are generally conducted based on probable cause rather than reasonable suspicion. I'm referring to a situation where you would otherwise get a ticket, but must instead be booked into jail. Your charge would not be failing to identify yourself, it would be your traffic violation, and you would be booked under the name John Doe.

You're right that it doesn't work this way in some places, but in most others it does. The point of my post is not to argue whether this is right or wrong, it's to let people know that this is the way it works in most places. I'm writing this so people understand that there is a real risk that they could end up in jail instead of getting a ticket. To tell them otherwise would be a disservice, because it would not prevent it from happening. You don't have to believe me, people are arrested under these circumstances all the time and the arrests are upheld by the courts.