Hiibel did not hold that “the cops are allowed to force you to give up the 411 on yourself.” The OP’s questions were: 1) Is he required to produce ID, and 2) Is he required to take a breathalyzer test?

First, “asking” for “ID” and “showing ID” are two separate things. The former is a request for one to verbally identify themselves; the latter is a request for one to hand over a physical document. Hiibel did not hold (and neither does the Kansas “Stop and Identify” statute cited require) that a person hand over any documentation. In fact, in Hiibel the Court held that the Nevada statute was satisfactorily met by merely “stating [your] name.”

As such, I believe it an overstatement to say that one is “forced to give up the 411 on [themselves].” In Kansas, you need only verbally 1) state your name, 2) state your address, and 3) state what you are doing. I haven’t checked the case law but I imagine an “explanation of [one's] actions” is only loosely defined and likely accepted to be what its plain meaning suggests; i.e. I’m sure “I’m going home” is sufficient. Although, as a previous commenter has noted, most schools have student conduct policies requiring people to show their student ID cards when in school buildings and while on campus after hours (or possibly at anytime). Regardless, a student ID and a driver’s license are two separate things.

Lastly, the issue unresolved by Mr. Lindsay’s response is the legal requirement of a minor to submit to a breathalyzer while not driving. If one is not driving a motor vehicle then there is no “Implied Consent” law in effect (some states require a driver to submit to such an analysis as a consequence of being permitted to operating a motor vehicle; i.e. having a driver’s license). I believe Mr. Lindsay’s response could have been more informative had the current case law on refusing to submit to a breathalyzer been discussed.

I further take issue with the last part of that law; “and an explanation of such suspect’s actions.” Assuming the stop met the legal requirement of reasonable, articulable, suspicion, anything I further say could be used against me. No court in the land would convict you for violating this statute if you chose to keep your mouth shut after identifying yourself.