explanation.”). Further, the complaint indicates that Officer Dilley asked Mocek for identification at least twice, explaining that he was under investigation for disturbing the peace and could be arrested if he did not obey. . As discussed above, Mocek not only failed to immediately furnish identification, but also impeded any further inquiry by resolving to remain silent. This was ample evidence and time for a reasonable officer to ascertain probable cause. See Dawson, 983 P.2d at 424 (“[W]e find ... support for a rule that permits one a few moments to consider the consequences of refusal to identify oneself. But that period would have to be brief.... Any delay in identifying oneself would ‘hinder’ or ‘interrupt’ law enforcement officers.”). And once probable cause is estab 2008) (<HOLDING>); cf. Carreon v. Ill. Dep’t of Human Servs.,
holding for purposes of a retaliation claim because michigan has not passed an applicable time place or manner restriction dean had a constitutionally protected right to engage in peaceful targeted picketing in front of byerleys residence emphasis added holding that the doorway of the home is a public place for purposes of the warrant requirement of the fourth amendment holding for purposes of a retaliation claim restricting  disruptive behavior constitutes the type of time place and manner regulation that survives even the most stringent scrutiny for a public forum holding that the selection of the jury constitutes part of a public trial holding that the plaintiffs message was not suppressed but only regulated as to time place and manner