With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". that the officers made a show of authority and that a person in Defendant’s position would not have felt free to leave after McDaniel twice asked the boys if they had any knives or weapons. {17} The boys were approached at night on an empty street by two armed police officers whom they knew had been observing them prior to the encounter. See United States v. Sanchez, 89 F.3d 715, 718 (10th Cir.1996) (stating that the “threatening presence of several officers” and the “absence of other members of the public” are factors that could indicate that a reasonable person would not feel free to ignore an encounter with the police). The police officers did not ask to speak to the boys, but rather demanded that they approach. See Smith v. United States, 558 A.2d 312, 314 (D.C.Cir.1989) (en banc) (<HOLDING>), overruled in part on other grounds by Green

A: holding that the concept of reasonableness in the fourth amendment logically presupposes an exercise of lawful authority by a police officer
B: holding that the initial stop by officer was based on reasonable suspicion that defendant was impersonating a police officer although another officer arrested defendant for privacy act violation
C: holding that a seizure as a violation of the fourth amendment when police surrounded an individuals house for three hours planning an arrest and ordering the individual out of his home under drawn firearms believing he was a suspect in a bank robbery
D: holding police officers show of authority by announcing he was a police officer and ordering defendant to stop was an investigative seizure implicating fourth amendment protections
D.