USA - Are you required to produce ID if a cop demands it?

OFF THE WIRE
http://www.pixiq.com/contributors/carlosmiller
Are you required to produce ID if a cop demands it?'
Papers please' for reporter at Texas capitol shooting investigation..
http://youtu.be/zPYW_8ehD1Y
http://www.infowars.com/

https://bikersofamerica.blogspot.com/2012/04/usa-are-you-required-to-produce-id-if.html
Like other reporters in the Austin-area, the Infowars team was immediately sent to the Texas Capitol building on news that a man, identified as Fausto Cardenas, had started shooting for no apparent reason.
There wasn't much else to discover once we got there. The suspect had apparently harmed no one and State Troopers were quietly combing over the South steps with their investigation.
I had catalogued everything going on behind the roped-off area and wandered around the other side of the Capitol to film another grouping of troopers who were combing the grounds with a (presumab
3:59 PM(presumably bomb-sniffing) dog. When a trooper noticed me filming their quiet investigation, everything suddenly changed.
Though the building itself was closed, the Capitol grounds remained open, and people were milling about freely. Only the area immediately surrounding the South steps was restricted by yellow tape.
Yet this officer approached me sternly, pointing his finger and commanding that I 'point the camera somewhere else' and provide ID. I refused.
For those who have forgotten, in the haze of post-9/11 paranoia, America is not a 'papers please' dictatorship or a corrupt banana republic, even if certain forces are might attempt to drag us in that direction.
So why did this officer feel the need to rush up and demand I justify myself? Were I suspected of a crime as benign as speeding such action might have been warranted, but I had literally done nothing but look in the wrong direction and catch the eye of the wrong person.
His name is known, but not important in this instance. He ceased being an officer, abandoning due process for arbitrary power. That is against the law-- the spirit of the law-- and thus I felt compelled not to go along with it. He asked if I had ID and I told him truthfully that I did, but did not feel I should give it.
By Carlos Miller -...

In the above video, a news videographer is standing on public property when approached by a cop who demands his identification (starting at 1:40). The videographer refuses to provide his identification on the grounds that he is not doing anything illegal.
The cop, of course, gets irritated and calls for more cops.
But the videographer continues to refuse. And he continues to film, much to the dismay of the cop who comically places his hat in front of the lens.
Did the videographer have the legal right to refuse to provide ID?
Yes.
But only because he was not being lawfully detained (the key word being “lawfully” as the officer did tell him he was being detained at 4:20).
After several minutes of bullying, the videographer was allowed to leave without producing his identification because they really had no reasonable suspicion to detain him.
However, he was ordered to leave the area when it is clear from the video that other civilians are casually strolling the same area. That was another unlawful order.
But at that point, he probably didn’t want to push his luck.
He was in Texas, after all.
Contrary to what some might believe, there is no federal law mandating that we must provide identification when asked by police.
However, several states have “stop and identify” statutes that require people to produce identifications if they are being legally detained. And police can only legally detain you if they have a reasonable suspicion you have committed or are about to commit a crime.
Texas recently joined the ranks of states that have these statutes. And the following 24 states also have stop and identify statutes, according to Wikipedia.

Alabama Ala. Code §15-5-30
Arizona Ari. Rev. Stat. Tit. 13, Ch. 24-12 (enacted 2005)
Arkansas Ark. Code Ann. §5-71-213(a)(1)
Colorado Colo. Rev. Stat. §16-3-103(1)
Delaware Del. Code Ann., Tit. 11, §§1902, 1321(6)
Florida Fla. Stat. §856.021(2)
Georgia Ga. Code Ann. §16-11-36(b) (loitering statute)
Illinois Ill. Comp. Stat., ch. 725, §5/107-14
Indiana Indiana Code §34-28-5-3.5
Kansas Kan. Stat. Ann. §22-2402(1)
Louisiana La. Code Crim. Proc. Ann., Art. 215.1(A)
Missouri Mo. Rev. Stat. §84.710(2)
Montana Mont. Code Ann. §46-5-401
Nebraska Neb. Rev. Stat. §29-829
Nevada Nev. Rev. Stat. §171.123
New Hampshire N. H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §594:2
New Mexico N. M. Stat. Ann. §30-22-3
New York N. Y. Crim. Proc. Law (CPL) §140.50 (1)
North Dakota N.D. Cent. Code §29-29-21 (PDF)
Ohio Ohio Rev. Code §2921.29 (enacted 2006)
Rhode Island R. I. Gen. Laws §12-7-1
Utah Utah Code Ann. §77-7-15
Vermont Vt. Stat. Ann., Tit. 24, §1983
Wisconsin Wis. Stat. §968.24

The Wikipedia entry breaks down police interactions into three categories; consensual, detention and arrest.
A consensual interaction is no different than an interaction between two civilians on the street. It gives the cop the right to ask the civilian questions, but it also gives the right for the civilian to refuse to answer those questions, including providing identification.
A detention interaction is where a person is being legally detained, meaning the officer needs to have some sort of reasonable suspicion that the person is involved in a crime. This is generally known as a “Terry Stop.” In the states that have stop and identify laws, the person could be arrested for refusing to provide identification.
The arrest interaction is when police have probable cause to arrest a person, which requires more evidence than mere reasonable suspicion. This, of course, allows the officer to search the person for identification once the arrest is made. If the suspect does not have identification, it could be illegal to refuse to identify oneself depending on the jurisdiction. You might remember last year’s article about a New Hampshire man who spent several weeks in jail for refusing to provide his real name.
Some police apologists might argue that if a person refuses to provide identification during a consensual argument, then that automatically turns it into a detention interaction because it gives the cop reasonable suspicion that he is trying to hide something.
But even an article written by a senior legal advisor from the Plano, Texas Police Department published in The Police Chief, described as the “Professional Voice of Law Enforcement,” confirms that an officer must be engaged in a Terry Stop before he can demand identification.
To further confound things, the rules supposedly differ when a person is operating a vehicle because state laws usually require people to produce identification upon request.
But even that has been challenged by a couple of Arizona activists who were arrested after refusing to comply with authorities after having been stopped at Border Patrol check points, including one who recently had his charges dismissed.