So have things changed over the past 8 years or is there still no requirement for ID and such.
Nemo
I know of nothing that has changed at the state level. The last I knew, there is no state law that requires you to even verbally identify yourself.
However, I have come across a few
local ordinances--county and town--that require you to verbally identify yourself to a police officer if he has reasonable articulable suspicion. The penalties for refusing were pretty stiff--one was as a Class I misdemeanor--up to a year in jail and/or up to a $2500 fine.
So, if you are going to refuse to identify yourself verbally to a police officer, you had better be sure of not only the state law, but the local ordinances of the jurisdiction you're standing in at the time you refuse. And, how the devil a fella is going to know with total certainty whether the cop has genuine RAS is beyond me.
For myself, I will verbally identify. Here's why: my personal policy is to file a formal complaint for every contact with a police officer who seems to be investigating me.* So, he is going to learn my name anyway when the formal complaint lands. And, local county supervisor boards and city councils meet monthly; there is no way I can keep up with whether they pass a stop-and-identify ordinance month-by-month.
*That may seem radical, but here are my thoughts. First, I've seen plenty of incidents where cops screwed up even consensual encounters. So, odds are that even during a consensual encounter, the cop is going to hand me something complaint-worthy. Second, the last clause of the First Amendment guarantees your right and mine to petition for redress of grievances. What is a grievance? A complaint. The First Amendment guarantees your right and mine to file a formal complaint against a police officer while seeking redress of the situation. And, nowhere in the First Amendment is there a requirement that the cop violate established law. If it were true that you could only complain if the cop violated case law or statutory law, the government could just legislate your rights away and you could never complain. Thus, you can complain even if the cop's actions merely seem unfair to you. Your right to do so is guaranteed by the last clause of the First Amendment.
While we are on the subject of Petitions for Redress of Grievance, permit me to expand slightly. I have heard of a very few cases (2-3?) where a citizen was sued by a police officer for posting a rant on social media or ranting in a complaint to the police department. The first couple I heard about scared me a little. The last one jogged something for me. A woman posted a rant on social media. The cop she ranted against over a (traffic stop?) sued her for defamation. Did the ranter lie? Who knows? The relevant point is that, even if telling the truth, you would have legal fees to defend against the lawsuit, even if you win. It occurred to me that all the ranter had to do was print the exact same rant in a formal complaint titled "Petition for Redress of Grievance" and then post a copy of the formal complaint on social media, and she would have been bullet-proof. Same for any cops who decide to sue you as a counter-tactic for filing a formal complaint. Make it clear your complaint is an exercise of your First Amendment right to petition for redress of grievances.
Pointer: don't let it be assumed that what you want is for the cop to not do anymore whatever you are complaining about. It is a petition
for redress of grievance. You have to expressly state the redress you are seeking: the cop gets retrained on some point of rights law, disciplined, fired, whatever. It is much clearer it is a petition for redress if you actually state the redress you are seeking.