Originally Posted by RichardKenner

Hiibel holds that it's unconstitutional for a state to require physical identification be shown on request to an LEO because any such law would, by necessity, be vague as to what would be required since there's no requirement for anybody to have identification. But it also states that a requirement to "identify oneself" does not violate the 5th Amendment and specifically anticipates such an answer being given verbally.

The situation here, where physical ID is shown but a verbal identity is being demanded, is not reached in Hiibel. An interesting comment in that case is that they say there might conceivably be a case in which stating one's identification might be testamentary and incriminatory and in such a case might rule differently.

There is a tricky situation here. Let's suppose that a person was presenting a false ID. Clearly, in such a situation, a person cannot be compelled to answer because either a true or false answer would be incriminatory. But now let's suppose that what they presented was not a fake. The Supreme Court has long recognized that the 5th Amendment privilege doesn't only apply to those who are guilty of some crime, but to those who are innocent as well. However, a person must have some reasonable believe that giving a truthful answer would put them at risk of being charged with some crime. Here's that's not the case.

On the other hand, if you have a situation where somebody is permitted to invoke the privilege only if they present a fake ID, then one can derive the falsity of the ID from an assertion of privilege, which is not permissible.

So I'm going to change my response to say that, although in general, a request to state one's name is not a violation of the 5th Amendment, the request to do so after showing physical ID is too tricky for me to assess with my knowlege of 5th Amendment law and I'll defer to somebody who knows more about it than I do.