presence of a weapon in a vehicle. Instead, it addresses the imminent danger to police when a driver or passenger will be permitted access to a vehicle that may contain a weapon or may be in a position to evade or overpower the officers at the scene. See Gamble, supra, 218 N.J. at 431-32, 95 A.3d 188; Lund, supra, 119 N.J. at 48, 573 A.2d 1376. That standard governs this appeal. As a threshold matter, the record contains sufficient credible evidence to support the trial court’s finding that, in light of Officer Ceci’s observations of defendant’s driving, there were specific and articulable facts giving rise to reasonable suspicion that defendant had committed motor vehicle violations and that the traffic stop was therefore lawful. See Gamble, supra, 218 N.J. at 431, 95 A.3d 188 (<HOLDING>); State v. Nishina, 175 N.J. 502, 512, 816 A.2d
holding that circumstances created reasonable suspicion for investigatory stop holding that reasonable suspicion is required to prolong a traffic stop after the purpose for which the investigatory stop was instituted has been accomplished holding that reasonable suspicion justifies an investigatory detention holding that flight from police can help establish reasonable suspicion for an investigatory stop holding that a tip may provide the reasonable suspicion necessary to justify an investigatory stop