65 to 49. Although he counted correctly, Testerman observed that his speech was deliberate and slurred and that his eyes were glossy. Based on these observations, Testerman brought Bolduc to the police station to administer a blood-alcohol test. Bolduc filed a motion to suppress, and, after a hearing, the court suppressed all evidence obtained subsequent to the vehicle stop. I. INVESTIGATORY STOP [¶ 5] An investigatory stop is valid when it is “supported by specific and articulable facts which, taken as a whole and together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant the police intrusion.” State v. Taylor, 1997 ME 81, ¶ 9, 694 A.2d 907, 909 (quoting State v. Hill, 606 A.2d 793, 795 (Me.1992)). A civil violation “provides adequate specific and articulable facts.” Id. (<HOLDING>). [¶ 6] There were articulable facts which
holding that notwithstanding the officers testimony that he had no suspicion of criminality the officer was aware of facts that would give rise to reasonable suspicion in the mind of a reasonable officer holding that taillight and license plate violations justify investigatory stop of automobile holding that a seizure was unlawful because certain facts had dispelled the officers reasonable suspicion holding that officers had reasonable suspicion to conduct a vehicle stop where official license and registration records reflected that the vehicle was registered to a driver with a revoked license holding that officers testimony that rear license plate was unilluminated supported a reasonable suspicion