Where did you read that?
I was just reading ....any one can be arrested and booked into the jail house for
"interfering in an investigation"
if we dont answer certain questions asked if we are stopped by the police for any reason....not just OC'ing.
NRS 171.123 is the relevant code here in Nevada. And the Supreme Court interpreted its application:
To hold that a name, which is neutral and non-incriminating information, is somehow an invasion of privacy is untenable. Such an invasion is minimal at best. 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. The Supreme Court held it reasonable for officers to pat down and frisk a person during an investigative stop. As the Court recognized in Terry v. Ohio, "it would be unreasonable to require that police officers take unnecessary risks in the performance of their duties." Requiring identification is far less intrusive than conducting a pat down search of one's physical person.This is from Hiibel vs District Court. You can read the full ruling here:
There was discussion during the case whether answering your name was, by itself, incriminating. The argument was that if you have a WARRANT for your arrest, your name would be used to match up with that warrant, and then arrest you. The court found that answering your name was not incriminating, but explicitly ended it there. While you must state your name you needn't provide a single bit of other information. Note, you don't even have to provide ID, merely saying your name aloud fulfills the requirements of NRS 171.123.
Notice the second part of the highlighted portion "where reasonable suspicion exists." Officers cannot merely stop you, detain you, and start questioning you without reasonable suspicion of a crime you have committed, are currently committing, or are about to commit imminently.