“As an earlier poster mentioned, the Supreme Court ruled in the last 24 months that the police could in fact demand that a citizen (or non-citizen for that matter) identify themselves.”
There is a difference between identifying yourself and being required to carry and ID.
I couldn't agree more. I found a link to a CNN story that does a good job explaining the court case in question. I may have been premature with respect to the "reasonable suspicion" element. Then again, I suspect in a practical, real-world sense, "reasonable suspicion" is a low threshold to reach for law enforcement.
I personally am split on this issue. I understand the difficulties that police face everyday in trying to prevent crime. But, I also fiercely defend the right of the citizen as guaranteed under the constitution. These questions should promote intense, passionate debate on both sides - that's exactly what the founders would have demanded.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/06/24/dorf.police.id/index.html