[brief] Appellant [...] was arrested and charged with driving while intoxicated under N.J.S.A. 39:4-50(a) on November 5, 2019.  Following a trial in the Denville Municipal Court, Appellant was found guilty of that offense and sentenced under the statute.  Appellant then appealed that decision to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Morris County, which similarly found Appellant guilty of driving while intoxicated following a trial de novo.  Simply stated, the Law Division erred by finding that the arresting officer’s initial stop of Appellant was permissible, by finding that the officer had probable cause to arrest Appellant, and by finding Appellant guilty of driving while intoxicated.  As such, this Court should reverse the decision of the Law Division and vacate the judgment of conviction entered against Appellant under N.J.S.A. 39:4-50.  First, the Law Division erred in finding that the arresting officer’s initial stop of Appellant was constitutionally permissible.  While the court applied the community caretaking exception to the general rule that the officer must have a reasonable, articulable suspicion that a motor vehicle infraction has occurred before instituting a stop, same was inapplicable here.  Contrary to the exception’s requirements, there was nothing abnormal about Appellant being stopped on the side of the road with the interior lights of his vehicle on during the morning in question.  Second, the Law Division improperly found that the State proved Appellant’s operation of a vehicle beyond a reasonable doubt.  The lone evidence adduced by the state to support operation of a motor vehicle was a statement allegedly made by Appellant which did not indicate that he had operated a vehicle, or intended to operate a vehicle, while under the influence of intoxicating liquor.  Third, the Law Division erred in finding that the arresting officer had probable cause to arrest Appellant.  In so finding, the Law Division improperly credited the testimony of the arresting officer, the lone witness in support of the State’s case against Appellant, as same was riddled with instances of forgetfulness and was otherwise inconsistent.  Fourth, the Law Division erred in finding that the State proved Appellant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt under either theory of liability applicable to offenses occurring under N.J.S.A. 39:4-50.  As with its finding of probable cause, the Law Division erred in crediting the testimony of the arresting officer to find that guilt was established solely by the officer’s personal observations.  Further, the Law Division erred in finding that the State proved Appellant’s guilt under the per se standard of liability, as the State failed to adduce evidence that the necessary procedures were followed when Appellant was given the alcotests used to support the State’s case against Appellant.  Finally, even if this Court finds that the Law Division did not err in finding Appellant guilty of driving while intoxicated under N.J.S.A. 39:4-50(a), this Court should nonetheless remand this matter for re-sentencing, as the Law Division judge abused his discretion by sentencing Appellant, an indigent individual, to an unreasonable monthly payment plan.