[¶ 1] Jason E. Gorneault appeals from a judgment of conviction for operating under the influence (Class C), 29-A M.R.S. § 2411(1 — A.)(B)(3) (2006), and operаting after habitual offender revocation (Class C), 29-A M.R.S. § 2557(2)(B)(2) (2005), 1 entered in the Superior Court (Aroostook County, O’M ara, J.) following the entry of his conditional guilty plea to both charges pursuant to M.R.Crim. P. 11(a)(2). Gor-neault contends that the court {Hunter, J.) erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence because, he argues, the еvidence was obtained following an illegal stop of his vehicle. We disagree, and affirm the judgment.
I. BACKGROUND
[¶ 2] On the evening of May 7, 2005, pоlice responded to a burglary report on West Road in Westmanland, a rural area. One officer sought the public’s help by signaling to all passing motorists with a flashlight to stop so that he could briefly inquire of them if they had noticed anything suspicious in the area. At the time, the police knew that the burglary had occurred only thirty minutes to two hours before, and hoped to obtаin information quickly.
[¶ 3] The officer stopped every vehicle that passed through the area, including one driven by Gorneаult. When the officer approached Gorneault’s vehicle, he noticed several indications that Gorneault had been drinking alcohol, and, following the administration of field sobriety tests, arrested Gorneault, who was later charged with oрerating under the influence (Class C), 29-A M.R.S. § 2411(1-A)(B)(3), and operating after habitual offender revocation (Class C), 29-A M.R.S. § 2557(2)(B)(2). The court {Hunter, J.) denied Gornеault’s subsequent motion to suppress all evidence obtained as a result of the stop.
[¶ 4] Gorneault entered a cоnditional guilty plea to both charges pursuant to M.R.Crim. P. 11(a)(2), preserving for appellate review the denial of his'motion tо suppress. The court {O’Mara, J.) sentenced Gorneault to eighteen months incarceration with all but six months suspended, two years оf probation, a $2100 fine, and a six-year license suspension for operating under the influence, and a $1000 fine for opеrating after revocation. Gor-neault’s appeal followed.
II. DISCUSSION
[¶ 5] Gorneault argues that the' court erred in denying his motion to suppress because his vehicle was stopped by the police without any reasonable articulable susрicion that he had committed a crime. We review the suppression court’s determinations of historical facts for сlear error, but review the “application of legal principles to those findings independently, ... because we аre in as good a position as the trial judge to decide whether those particular facts warrant a legal cоnclusion.”
State v. McCarthy,
[¶ 6] Generally, an investigatory traffic stop is constitutionally legitimate if the officer conducting the stop has “an articulable suspicion that criminal conduct has taken place, is occurring, or imminent
*1209
ly will occur, and the officer’s assessment of the existence of specific and articulable facts sufficient to warrant the stop is objectively reasonable in the totality of the circumstances.”
State v. Lafond,
[¶ 7] In
Illinois v. Lidster,
[¶ 8] The United States Supreme Court upheld the state trial court’s denial of Lid-ster’s motion to suppress, noting that in an information-seeking highway stop, the purpose is not to determine whether the vehicle’s driver is committing a crime, but rather to seek helpful information in order to apprehend the perpetrator of a specific crime committed by another.
Id.
at 422-23,
[¶ 9] The circumstances of the brief stop of Gorneault’s vehicle and of his subsequent arrest are substantially similar to those in Lidster. Police set uр a roadside inquiry of every vehicle passing through an area where a crime had recently been committed for the purpose of obtaining information about the crime and its perpetrator. The stop was of very brief duration and unlikеly to cause alarm or anxiety, and the questions were limited to those related to the recently committed burglary. The purpose of the brief stop and the inquiry was not to determine if the drivers themselves committed a crime, nor to conduct general crime investigation, but rather was in response to a specific crime committed at a specific time аnd in a specific location. Gorneault’s condition was observed during that brief stop. Accordingly, the Superior Court did not еrr in denying Gorneault’s motion to suppress.
The entry is:
Judgment affirmed.
Notes
. Section 2557 has since been repealed and replaced by 29-A M.R.S. § 2557-A (2006). P.L. 2005, ch. 606, §§ A-10, A-ll (effective Aug. 23, 2006).
. "The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and Article 1, Section 5 of the Maine Constitution, offer identical protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.”
State v. Patterson,