I was "stopped" in Wash. Sq., a couple years ago, and I learned here on INGO, that is you are not driving, you don't have to show DL.....
He asked me to ID, and I told him my name and where I lived...
He said that wasn't good enough... I said, I don't have to show DL, because I am not driving, so I showed him my Ret., Mil. ID.....
He said that is not good enough..... In fact he asked me, what it was.
I told him, that it was Ret. Mil. ID.... He said if I didn't want to be arrested for Disorderly Conduct, I had better give him, REAL ID, In. DL.....
So I did .....
For what offense was the officer citing you (or had reasonable suspicion that you were committing), that he had statutory authority to demand you to identify yourself? If he was not citing you for (or had reasonable suspicion that you were committing) an offense, he had no authority to demand that you identify yourself. And even if he was citing (or investigating) you for an offense, per the SCOTUS decision in Hiibel, verbally providing your name meets the statutory requirement for identification. (IIRC, providing address is also required, if one is being cited - since the officer needs the address for the citation.)
See also, Brown v Texas, and Terry v Ohio, regarding the reasonable-suspicion standard for an investigatory detention that must precede any compulsion to identify oneself.