With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Supreme Court has conclusively established, as long as the detaining officer has an objectively justified basis to detain an individual, the officer's subjective intent is irrelevant. See Ohio v. Robinette,-U.S.-•, -, 117 S.Ct. 417, 420-21, 136 L.Ed.2d 347 (1996); Whren v. United States, - U.S. -,-, 116 S.Ct. 1769, 1774, 135 L.Ed.2d 89 (1996). 8 . Notably, in construing the significance of the position of the patrol car relative to a pedestrian-defendant, the United States Supreme Court has held that when an officer is in a patrol car pursuing a defendant who is on foot, that does not necessarily convey a message to the defendant that he is not free to leave or to disregard the police presence. See Michigan v. Chesternut, 486 U.S. 567, 575, 108 S.Ct. 1975, 1980, 100 L.Ed.2d 565 (1988) (<HOLDING>). 9 . Deputy Rosenbaum’s testimony indicates

A: holding that no seizure had occurred because the record did not reflect that the police activated a siren or flashers or that they commanded the defendant to halt or displayed any weapons or that they operated the car in an aggressive manner to block the defendants course or otherwise control the direction or speed of his movement
B: holding that once the defendant has submitted to the control of the officer and the process of taking him or her to the police station  has commenced his or her arrest is complete and he or she is in custody for the purposes of the escape statute
C: holding that the elements of a claim under  3729a2 are 1 that the defendant made used or caused to be made or used a record or statement to get a claim against the united states paid or approved 2 the record or statement and the claim were false or fraudulent and 3 the defendant knew that the record or statement and the claim were false or fraudulent emphasis added
D: holding that appellants had no standing to challenge search of car because they had no ownership or possessory rights of any kind in the car
A.