Guys, this was discussed before. In the case of Hiibel vs. Nevada SCOTUS determined that states can have laws requiring that people must provide ID. But, this is subject to State Law. Also, ID producing requirement should be limited in scope. So, if certain states have such "Stop & ID" laws, then a person must ID him/herself when stopped and asked so by LEO. If a state does not have any "Stop & ID" laws, then a person has no obligation to provide ID or, even verbally to ID. Last time I checked, Michigan had no "Stop & ID" laws at all. This means that, in theory, one is under no obligation to provide ID or verbally ID in Michigan regardless at what stage your interaction with LEO is (voluntary encounter, detainment or arrest). In practice, it makes sense in certain situation refuse to ID during first two stages mentioned above. However, once arrested, it no longer makes sens, in my opinion. One reason is because refusing to ID (lets say a person carries no ID, so search did not produce one) will not allow you to secure a bond and you will remain in jail.
Nevada vs. Hiibel ---->
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiibel_v._Sixth_Judicial_District_Court_of_Nevada