This is a muddy issue in Minnesota, so you have to be really careful. We are not governed by statute alone. Many of the rules we have to follow are based on:
1. Precedents established in previous cases
2. The outcome of appeals, including to the state and federal supreme courts
3. Evidentiary rules and trials rules set individually by each county or circuit
This is why it gets so muddy. By statue in MN, police cannot asked for your ID "just because." If you are operating a vehicle or are in a location (like a bar) that requires ID, then you can be asked for, and MUST provide ID. Aside from those circumstances, by Minnesota law, you aren't supposed to be asked for ID unless the officer has specific, reasonable, credible probable cause to believe you have committed a crime. Perfectly black and white, right?
Well, here it comes. All of the following have, at one time or another, been upheld upon appeal in MN:
1. Cases have been upheld where people were arrested for not providing their name. Some courts hold that even though ID is not required, you are required to provide your name, and if you do, it must be your real name. Of course, this starts the slippery slope. The officer can go into court and say "I do NOT believe the person was committing a crime. But I asked them for their name, and I DID have probable cause to believe they were not giving me their real name. Misleading an officer by misrepresenting yourself IS a crime, and therefore, I now had probable cause to require them to give me their ID."
2. There were landmark cases here in MN about whether you had to reveal your face when requested by an officer, even without probable cause. Women wearing religious facial covers were arrested for failing to remove the covers when asked. The case I believe went to the Supreme Court in the 90s. These kinds of cases establish a precedent that officers ARE entitled to know who you are even without probable cause, which totally waters down the whole "we're a no-ID state."
3. Police have won appeals repeatedly where they have forcefully retrieved the IDs of people they know are not criminals. This tactic will be used in the recent Skyway case in St. Paul. The logic is "we have probable cause that a crime has been committed, and even though we don't think YOU are the criminal, we can legally require your ID to screen you out as a suspect, because eliminating you as a suspect helps us narrow in on the actual criminal."
Again and again and again, the police win appeals using this kind of logic. Even the state and federal supreme courts often just give in, instead of standing up for constitutional principles.
I TOTALLY agree that you should exercise your right to stay silent. But, I totally disagree with this blanket statement that we don't have to show ID when asked. When those cases go to appeal, the citizen almost always loses and the police almost always win, even though the state's statutes say otherwise. You BETTER have video of the incident, and it better be in a place online that will survive the confiscation of your phone. Remember the Skyway guy... His phone was confiscated on January 31, and even though he was not suspected or charged with a crime, was not returned to him until August 26. Had he been charged back in February, the only proof of his innocence would have been in the trunk of the officer's car, and there's no way he would have been acquitted.
Here's my recommendation in MN: As has been said, ask if you are free to go. If so, GO at once. If not, then you are being detained, which means right or wrong, the officers either believe, or are pretending to believe, they have probable cause, which establishes their right to ask you for ID. They don't have to be right, they just have to say they believed they were right. If you are in a public place and others are recording the exchange, you can considering refusing to show ID until you are told what the specific probable cause is. But if no one is recording the exchange, or the only one recording it likely to be detained, then you are opening one seriously messy can of worms refusing to identify yourself, and you have to do so accepting that it is unlikely you will prevail.
I am not anti-cop, anti-government, anti-establishment. But I do believe with all my heart what our founding fathers said. That government oppression comes about as the result of good people, with good intentions. We are always on the lookout for the next evil guy, the next Hitler or the next Stalin. But that's not how civilizations fall. They fall because good people (cops) doing good work (policing) with good intentions, inevitably come to see themselves as "keepers of the peace" and not as sacred guardians of the constitution FIRST and keepers of the peace second.