not illegal, as most jurisdictions do not compel suspects to furnish documentation outside the context of traffic violations. In any event, New Mexico law is not entirely clear on whether someone in Mo-cek’s shoes might be required to answer basic questions about his identity, such as a request for his address. But Officer Dilley’s only request was for documentation, and failing to show documentation, in isolation, during an investigative stop for disorderly conduct might not amount to concealing one’s identity. Nonetheless, Officer Dilley is entitled to qualified immunity. A reasonable mistake in interpreting a criminal statute, for purposes of determining whether there is probable cause to arrest, entitles an officer to qualified immunity. See Pearson, 555 U.S. at 231,129 S.Ct. 808 (<HOLDING>); Fogarty, 523 F.3d at 1159 (resolving
holding that prison disciplinary hearing committee members are entitled to qualified immunity holding that an officer applying for a warrant without probable cause may be entitled to qualified immunity but is not entitled to absolute immunity holding that where defendant claiming qualified immunity relies on facts that are in dispute qualified immunity cannot be granted holding officials are entitled to qualified immunity for reasonable mistakes of law holding that defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity