Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): that the cited driver will not appear in court or is under the influence, the officer is statutorily empowered with discretion to arrest or cite the driver. 16 The case before us is distinguishable from Collins v. State, 113 Nev. 1177, 946 P.2d 1055 (1997), and Ortega v. Reyna, 114 Nev. 55, 953 P.2d 18 (1998), which were decided based on the mandatory provision of NRS 484.795. 17 Black’s Law Dictionary 419 (5th ed. 1979) (emphasis added). 18 Id. (emphasis added). 19 Osburn v. State, 118 Nev. 323, 325-26, 44 P.3d 523, 525 (2002); see also Arkansas v. Sullivan, 532 U.S. 769, 772 (2001) (explaining states may restrict police power under state law to a greater degree than the Supreme Court holds is necessary under the Federal Constitution); California v. Greenwood, 486 U.S. 35, 43 (1988) (<HOLDING>). 20 Zale-Las Vegas v. Bulova Watch, 80 Nev. 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the idaho constitution provides no greater protection from double jeopardy than does the federal constitution (B) holding that our federal constitution undoubtedly imposes constraints on the states power to control the selection of ones spouse (C) recognizing that state constitution imposes more stringent limitations on power of state to inquire into lawful associations and speech than those imposed by federal constitution (D) holding that under leatherman a federal court may not apply a pleading requirement more stringent than that provided for in the federal rules of civil procedure even in  1983 litigation (E) holding that individual states may    construe their own constitutions as imposing more stringent constraints on police conduct than does the federal constitution
Output (English): holding that our federal constitution undoubtedly imposes constraints on the states power to control the selection of ones spouse