you had the right to remain silent

In addition to the landmark space flight yesterday, The Supreme Court issued its ruling in Hiibel v. Nevada. In this case, a man — Hiibel — was standing beside a truck, and was asked to identify himself by police investigating a domestic dispute. Hiibel (who appeared intoxicated) refused, and following repeated requests by the officer for his identity, was arrested for failing to identify himself.
Stevens in his dissent is right on:

Surely police questioning during a Terry stop qualifies as an interrogation, and it follows that responses to such questions are testimonial in nature...

Given a proper understanding of the category of "incriminating" communications that fall within the Fifth Amendment privilege, it is clear that the disclosure of petitioner's identity is protected. The Court reasons that we should not assume that the disclosure of petitioner's name would be used to incriminate him or that it would furnish a link in a chain of evidence needed to prosecute him. But why else would an officer ask for it? And why else would the Nevada Legislature require its disclosure only when circumstances "reasonably indicate that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime?" If the court is correct, then petitioner's refusal to cooperate did not impede the police investigation. Indeed, if we accept the predicate for the Court's holding, the statute requires nothing more than a useless invasion of privacy. I think that, on the contrary, the Nevada Legislature intended to provide its police officers with a useful law enforcement tool, and that the very existence of the statute demonstrates the value of the information it demands. [emphasis added]

Fundamentally, the right against self-incrimination should prevent the state from compelling identification. There is also an additional principle at play. The Nevada statute requires a reasonable suspicion that the person is involved in a crime. However, this judgment is left to the state, and compelling individuals to identify themselves in public clearly represents a shift in individual privacy rights. A troubling shift indeed...