I guess I'm missing the point. To:
I was under the impression that this code would apply...
I don't think anyone would disagree there are statutes which have been broken by the OP. The question has to do with the evidence used to prove the violation. Was it gathered reasonably or unreasonably?
By the driver's act of driving upon the highway, that person then must have a driver's license on their person or in their possession.
It is not a fishing trip to ask for a document that must be present for an act the officer clearly observes as occurring.
It *is* a "fishing trip" if the officer does not already have the facts and circumstances that would lead a reasonable person with like training and experience to believe the OP committed a crime.
After the officer found out there was not a violation of the HOV lane, what fact or circumstance did the officer have to reasonably believe a crime was happening?
If you think that question is unimportant, then you believe the police can pull every driver they want over any time they want because they "must have a driver's license on their person or in their possession".
The 4th amendment should have the judge suppress evidence of the search obtained after the passenger was seen unless the police officer can articulate *further* probable cause or reasonable suspicion that the OP had been committing some crime. Just because the reason was not cited does not mean it does not exist.
Edit:
I think this would fall under the same type of reasoning that allows officers to run any plate they see. If you are driving, you are stating that you possess the proper documentation to drive and have paid the proper taxes on the vehicle.
The difference is if a person is simply walking down the street. There is no documentation required to walk. Therefore, demanding someone's ID without cause is more difficult.
It is not a search to see what a person sees while in a place he is legally. Here there was a search. Although, if the officer can make the case the OP knew he was free to leave and turned over the license and registration with consent, he might be able to change an illegal search into one with consent. (It would be very fact sensitive and I don't see it on our facts here.)