Seems there was a rather recent Supreme court decision on this, involving a man that refused to identify himself, it was not even a matter of showing an ID it never got that far he simply refused to tell the police officer his name, much less produce an ID card. (Evidently it was already know to them anyway who he was) The outcome as I recall was you are required to identify yourself in some way verbally is accepted "Yes officer my name Is James T. Kirk" no mention was made to a requirement to produce a state issued ID, drivers liscense or equal, interestingly enough if you are an Anabaptist it would be a violation of your right to freedom of religion to even have a graven image made of you.
Here is a link to one of the many article on the subject.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/06/24/dorf.police.id/
second better article
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0622/p01s01-usju.html
THE ISSUE YET TO BE DECIDED AT THIS POINT IS IF WE ALL WILL HAVE A STATE or FEDERALLY ISSUED TATTOO FOR POSITIVE IDENTIFICATION, and of cousre in interest for national security and our safety.