The court reverses the denial of a motion to suppress drug evidence discovered by a detective following a dog sniff after an admitted pretext stop. Although not questioning the detective's good faith or impugning the trial court's finding that he was a credible witness, the court finds neither is enough to justify this stop. "The suspicion necessary to justify a stop must not only be reasonable, but also particularized." State v. Scriven, 226 N.J. 20, 37 (2016). The detective failed to offer facts sufficient, as a matter of law, to allow the court to determine he possessed a reasonable articulable suspicion that Boone failed to maintain his lane "as nearly as practicable." N.J.S.A. 39:88(b). SeeState v. Woodruff, 403 N.J. Super. 620, 627-28 (Law Div. 2008). We do not reach defendant's argument that the automobile exception did not apply because the circumstances giving rise to probable cause were not spontaneous and unforeseeable as required under State v. Witt, 223 N.J. 409, 447-48 (2015). SeeState v. Smart, 253 N.J. 156, 171 (2023).