That issue was hashed through when the Hiibel decision came down, both here and on TFL, iirc. (There was a particularly lengthy discussion at TFL.)My understanding of Hibel differs from yours. I believe the SCOTUS ruled that LEOs may ask for and demand ID upon "reasonable suspicion" that a crime either has been committed or is about to be committed. This is a lower standard than "probable cause," but it is not blanket autorization to demand ID in the absence even of reasonable suspicion.
I personally think that "reasonable suspicion" is a meaningless phrase.
Technically, the supreme court ruled that a state can pass a law which allows LEOs to demand ID on "reasonable suspicion." Nevada had such a law, but states are free to repeal (or not to pass) such laws; the SCOTUS merely ruled that such laws are constitutional.