Cited by

To undertake an investigatory stop, a police officer must have reasonable suspicion – based upon specific, articulable facts taken together with rational inferences from those facts – that the particular person stopped has been, is, or is about to be, engaged in criminal activity.

Moreover, we do not consider each of Ronchi's observations in isolation; rather, we consider them together and in light of the reasonable inferences that an officer who is experienced in detecting and investigating impaired drivers may draw.

Compare Joyce, 159 N.H. at 447 *190 (investigative stop not justified by reasonable suspicion, despite nervousness and deceptive responses of defendant and his companion, when they denied using marijuana and nothing in car suggested drug consumption), with State v. Wallace, 146 N.H. 146, 149-50 (2001) (stop justified by reasonable suspicion when the defendant was found near the scene of a recent robbery, dressed in hooded dark clothing, and cast furtive glances before he made a 360 degree turn a

In reviewing the trial court’s ruling, we accept its factual findings unless they lack support in the record or are clearly erroneous.

In reviewing the trial court’s rulings, we accept its factual findings unless they lack support in the record or are clearly erroneous.

We accept the trial court’s factual findings unless they lack support in the record or are clearly erroneous.

In reviewing the trial court’s ruling, we accept its factual findings unless they lack support in the record or are clearly erroneous.

In reviewing the trial court’s ruling, we accept its factual findings unless they lack support in the record or are clearly erroneous.

*97 In reviewing the trial court’s ruling, we accept its factual findings unless they lack support in the record or are clearly erroneous.

In reviewing the trial court’s ruling, we accept its factual findings unless they lack support in the record or are clearly erroneous.

Our review of the trial court’s legal conclusions is de novo.

We do not, however, consider each fact in isolation.

Because neither party disputes the finding that the defendant was seized when the officer parked behind the defendant’s vehicle and activated his lights, our sole task on appeal is to determine whether the seizure was constitutional.

State v. Wallace, 146 N.H. 146, 148 (2001) (“In reviewing the trial court’s ruling, we accept its factual findings unless they lack support in the record or are clearly erroneous.”).

When reviewing a trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress, we accept the trial court’s factual findings unless they lack support in the record or are clearly erroneous.

With respect to the lawfulness of an investigative stop, the State Constitution is at least as protective as the Federal Constitution.