With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the Officers asked the defendant if he had a gun. He said he did, and they found it. It appears that this matter essentially was — well, at least initially was a consensual encounter. No attempt to flee. No attempt to mislead. A very straight forward encounter on both sides, it would appear. And very early on, the officers had a reasonable articulable suspicion of a crime having been committed, and the defendant having committed it. In fact, the suspicion was increased substantially when the defendant acknowledged that he had a gun. Therefore, it would appear that the consensual encounter masqueraded as a Terry stop. In other words, the district court ruled that the entire encounter did not violate the Fourth Amendment because the initial encountér was consensual, 2 (6th Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>). Mitchell also asserts that because flight and

A: holding that officers observation of a known drug dealer approaching the defendants car gave rise to reasonable suspicion
B: holding that officers lacked reasonable suspicion to seize the defendant based on an anonymous call to a drug hotline about drug sales in a known hot spot stating that to allow the tip alone to establish reasonable suspicion would allow officers carte blanche to search every person in the vicinity
C: holding that an officers observation of exchange of small object and money in a known drug trafficking area constituted reasonable suspicion
D: holding that an anonymous tip that a person is carrying a gun  without any corroborating evidence  did not provide reasonable suspicion of criminal wrongdoing justifying the officers stop and frisk of that person
B.