Comment: Not the case you are

Not the case you are referring to, but relevant: Brown v. Texas, 443 U. S. 47, 52 (1979)

In this case, Brown was stopped by police in an alley as he was walking away from another person. Police stopped him and demanded he identify himself, which he refused. He was then arrested and charged with violating a state law that required he give his name and address when that information is demanded by a cop. He lost the initial case in court but won on appeal. Here is the opinion from that case:

In the absence of any basis for suspecting appellant of misconduct, the balance between the public interest and appellant's right to personal security and privacy tilts in favor of freedom from police interference. The Texas statute under which appellant was stopped and required to identify himself is designed to advance a weighty social objective in large metropolitan centers: prevention of crime. But even assuming that purpose is served to some degree by stopping and demanding identification from an individual without any specific basis for believing he is involved in criminal activity, the guarantees of the Fourth Amendment do not allow it. When such a stop is not based on objective criteria, the risk of arbitrary and abusive police practices exceeds tolerable limits.

The application of Tex.Penal Code Ann., Tit. 8, § 38.02 (1974), to detain appellant and require him to identify himself violated the Fourth Amendment because the officers lacked any reasonable suspicion to believe appellant was engaged or had engaged in criminal conduct. Accordingly, appellant may not be punished for refusing to identify himself, and the conviction is

Reversed.

So basically, laws which demand you identify yourself to the cops are in violation of the Fourth Amendment if the cop doesn't have reasonable suspicion. Suspicion has to be based in fact, not on feelings. Seeing you with a crowbar in hand near a broken window is suspicion based on facts. If a cop says you look suspicious, demand they give you the facts that lead them to that suspicion. If he can't point out any particular causes for that suspicion, he's got nothing.