With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429, 111 S.Ct. 2382, 115 L.Ed.2d 389 (1991). We hold, however, that “what began as a consensual encounter quickly became an investigative detention once the [officer] received [appellant’s] driver’s license and did not return it to him.” United States v. Lambert, 46 F.3d 1064, 1068 (10th Cir.1995)(police confronted defendant next to his car, requested his driver’s license, and retained the license for twenty minutes in order to run a computer check). A reasonable person in appellant’s circumstances would not have believed that he could terminate the encounter once the officer retained the driver’s license and returned to his police vehicle to run a record check. Furthermore, as a practical matter, if appellant left the scene in his ve 83 S.E.2d 268, 270

A: holding that the defendant was not seized when two officers approached the defendant on a public street and asked him questions
B: holding that where officers approached a suspicious person in an airport terminal and with credentials displayed asked if they could speak with him the individual consented the officers told him that he was suspected of carrying contraband and he consequently allowed them to search his person the encounter did not implicate the fourth amendment
C: holding fourth amendment not implicated when police officers approached defendant who was standing outside of an airport terminal and asked to see his airline ticket and identification
D: holding fourth amendment not implicated when police officers asked defendant to see his airline ticket asked for identification and requested consent to search him
C.