That decision is that states with stop and identify laws, can require someone to identify themself when there is "reasonable suspicion" a crime has occured, which is also knowns as a Terry stop. The decision does not say you have to have government ID in those states. It says you have to identify yourself. It is sufficient to state your name and birth date for these purposes.
Again, that doesn't mean police will follow the law. Most of them don't.
However, that does not mean the police won't put you in jail for not having ID, though they have to let you out eventually. This has happened to me.
At this point in the discussion someone cites the Hiibel decision: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiibel_v._Sixth_Judicial_Distri...
That decision is that states with stop and identify laws, can require someone to identify themself when there is "reasonable suspicion" a crime has occured, which is also knowns as a Terry stop. The decision does not say you have to have government ID in those states. It says you have to identify yourself. It is sufficient to state your name and birth date for these purposes.
Again, that doesn't mean police will follow the law. Most of them don't.