With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". purposes of the Fourth Amendment where the investigating officer did not take the license over to the squad car to run the warrants check. See id. at 124. Instead, the officer "stood beside the car, near where [the defendant] was standing, and used his walkie-talkie" to contact the dispatcher. Id. This cireumstance, among others, resulted in the determination that the consensual encounter did not escalate into a level two seizure. See id. Thus, in this case, Patrick's momentary use of Adams's identification for a warrants check does not compel the conclusion that a level two seizure occurred, especially because Patrick did not hold onto the identification any longer than was necessary. Cf. Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491, 501-02, 103 S.Ct. 1319, 75 L.Ed.2d 229 (1983) (plurality opinion) (<HOLDING>); People v. Jackson, 39 P.3d 1174, 1188

A: holding that public safety exception applies if and only if two conditions are satisfied 1 that the defendant might have or recently have had a weapon and 2 that someone other than police might gain access to that weapon and inflict harm with it and that while second prong would not apply for instance if the police entered a defendants room handcuffed him and placed him on a chair in the hallway outside his room it might apply if defendant was unrestrained and had turned back into his room to retrieve his identification when questioned by the police
B: holding that police acted permissibly in approaching airtine traveler and asking for identification but when police retained travelers documentation while asking him to accompany them to a separate room for questioning police illegally seized traveler
C: holding victims statement testimonial where it was elicited in response to structured police questioning pursuant to a police investigation
D: holding that when the victim calmly responded to questions at the police station with officers often asking leading questions the statements were testimonial
B.