the Nevada Supreme Court has interpreted NRS 171.123(3) to require only that a suspect disclose his name. See 118 Nev., at ___, 59 P. 3d, at 1206 (opinion of Young, C. J.) ("The suspect is not required to provide private details about his background, but merely to state his name to an officer when reasonable suspicion exists"). As we understand it, the statute does not require a suspect to give the officer a driver's license or any other document.
Slashdot Mirror
It appears that the june 21, 2004 ruling only
l ?c ourt=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=03-5554
applies to verbally identifying yourself.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.p
the Nevada Supreme Court has interpreted NRS 171.123(3) to require only that a suspect disclose his name. See 118 Nev., at ___, 59 P. 3d, at 1206 (opinion of Young, C. J.) ("The suspect is not required to provide private details about his background, but merely to state his name to an officer when reasonable suspicion exists"). As we understand it, the statute does not require a suspect to give the officer a driver's license or any other document.
Jury nullification is implied in the Constitution
(for criminal cases).
The State, of course, doesn't want you to know about it.
http://www.lawcollective.org/article.php?id=27
The jury's role "as a check on official power" is in fact "its intended function." Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 86-87 n.8 (1986)
http://www.fija.org/fijafacts.htm
http://freedomlaw.com/Amicus.htm
Tell a friend or two.