[brief] The State submits that defendant is guilty of DWI beyond a reasonable doubt.  I.  [...] had a reasonable, articulable suspension that defendant operated the vehicle while intoxicated before requesting defendant to exit the vehicle and perform SFSTs.  Defendant argues that the court below erred in finding that [...] had a reasonable articulable suspicion sufficient to effectuate a stop.  (Db17-Db19).  Defendant is wrong.  The administration of the SFSTs is “more analogous to a Terry\(^9\) stop than to a formal arrest, and therefore may be justified by a police officer’s reasonable suspicion based on particularized, articulable facts suggesting a driver’s intoxication. ”  State v. Bernokeits, 423 N.J. Super. 365, 374 (App. Div. 2011).  (Aa33).  At the pretrial hearing, [...] testified, without any cross-examination or objection, that on November 5, 2019, at approximately 2:18 --- \(^9\) Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968).  a.m., he responded to a report of a disabled vehicle and found defendant parked on the right-hand side of the road across several parking spots near a closed pizza shop.  [...] approached defendant’s vehicle, looking to render possible aid, and observed that the interior lights were on.  [...] testified that in his past experience, this meant that the key was in the vehicle’s ignition.  (2T7:22 to 2T8:16; 2T9:4-7; 2T9:9-19; Aa34).  In the course of providing assistance, defendant told [...] that he was going to visit a friend in Hackettstown.  While further speaking with defendant, [...] detected a strong odor of an alcoholic beverage on defendant’s breath and noted that defendant’s speech was slurred and his eyes were bloodshot and droopy.  Based on these observations, [...] requested that defendant exit the vehicle and perform SFSTs.  (2T11:2-23; 2T19:9-17; Aa33-Aa34).  The court below appropriately found that [...] was dispatched and came upon defendant “to provide assistance as a proper application of the community caretaking function,” “which may be implicated where police observe ‘something abnormal . . . concerning the operation of a motor vehicle. ’”  State v. Smith, 251 N.J. 244, 262 (2022) (citing State v. Cohen, 347 N.J. Super. 375, 378 (App. Div. 2002)).  The court below found that [...] credibly testified at the pretrial hearing that he found defendant’s vehicle parked across multiple parking spots in such a way that other vehicles could not pull in.  [...] further credibly testified that the interior lights were on which, based on his experience, meant that the key was in the vehicle’s ignition.  These observations clearly indicated that the vehicle and/or its driver were experiencing difficulties.  (Aa35).  Moreover, when [...] continued with his investigation, he observed several indicia of intoxication, including a strong odor of an alcoholic beverage on defendant’s breath, slurred speech, and bloodshot and droopy eyes.  As the court below correctly found, these observations gave rise to a reasonable articulable suspicion that defendant had operated the vehicle while intoxicated.  (Aa35).  Thus, [...] had reasonable, articulable suspicion justifying his requests that defendant exit the vehicle and perform SFSTs.  II.