Actually, there was. Why the article doesn't say so, I don't know.
Not that it makes it right.
See here.
Thanks for the info and the link. My first mistake was believing the facts as stated.
The link to Hiibel's web site shows clearly that there was the suggestion of a crime. As you implied though, it doesn't appear to have been handled in a correct manner.
I still contend that it should not be a crime to not have your "papers" on you at all times. I also contend that to refuse to produce said "papers" without at least being given a valid reason for the request should not be a crime.