Now in the Supreme Court is a trial over whether or not you will be legally bound to identify yourself when asked by a police officer.
In 2000 Mr. Hiibel of Nevada refused to tell an officer his name. He hadn't committed a crime. He was apparently parked on the side of the road arguing with his then teenage daughter and a neighbor called the police to complain about their argument.
The officer asked for Hiibel's ID and Hiibel refused. Hiibel claims that his Fourth and Fifth Ammendment rights protect his privacy (of his name) and his right to remain silent. In 2000, the officer arrested a non-resisting Hiibel; who was then fined $250 for not giving the officer his ID.
Hiibel's daughter attacked the officer (in response to her father being arrested) and was photographed being thrown to the ground by police and handcuffed.
So what sort of precedent will this case establish if we must identify ourselves to any law enforcement official who asks? If we have not committed a crime why should we have to identify ourselves?
Justices Scalia and O'Connor have both remarked on this case.
edited to add: