Id. Not so here. In determining the validity of Officer’s Ware’s stop, it is not unreasonable to consider both the risk of harm resulting from a failure to stop the vehicle, based on the reasons articulated by Officer Ware, and the level of intrusiveness occasioned by a detention. See State v. Richardson, 156 Wis.2d 128, 456 N.W.2d 830, 834 (1990) (reasonableness of stop “is a common sense question, which strikes a balance between the interests of society in solving crime and the members of that society to be free from unreasonable intrusions”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The police intervention in this case consisted of a brief motor-vehicle stop and inquiry, “not a hands-on violation of the person.” See State v. Boyea, 171 Vt. 401, 410, 765 A.2d 862, 868 (2000) (<HOLDING>). The “liberty interest at stake” in the case
holding that officer had reasonable suspicion to stop a vehicle when confidential informant personally observed the vehicle provided a description of the vehicle and its direction detailed the basis for her suspicion that the vehicle was engaged in illegal activity and had previously given reliable information that led to the successful apprehension of individuals engaged in various criminal activity holding that district court lacked authority to dismiss charges of driving under the influence reckless driving operating a motor vehicle without a seatbelt and operating a motor vehicle without insurance without states consent where dismissal was at gonzalezs request based on absence of arresting officer holding that police officer could make investigative stop of vehicle based on anonymous tip that vehicle was operating erratically without personally observing incriminating behavior holding police officer had probable cause to believe defendant was operating a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol holding a stop was effected where officers vehicle blocked defendants vehicle from proceeding