With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". did not elevate the telephone call into a Fourth Amendment seizure: That [the detective] told [the suspect] he would secure an arrest warrant if [the suspect] refused [to go to the police station] does not alter the outcome; [the suspect] was free to demand that [the detective] do just that. [The detective] was not even confronting [the suspect] physically; [the suspect] could have hung up the phone. That [the detective] may have been verbally abusive does not elevate the phone call, with the distancing inherent in the tenuousness of a telephone connection and the ease with which [the suspect] could have hung up the phone, into a seizure for purposes of the Fourth Amendment. Id. at 200; cf. Butitta v. Carbajal, No. 96-16553, 1997 WL 345719, at *1 (9th Cir. June 23, 1997) (unpublished) (<HOLDING>). Because Silvan and Alanna could have

A: holding that police officers did not violate the fourth amendment by telephoning an individual and threatening to seize a motorcycle in her possession and to arrest her without a warrant
B: holding that threatening employee to mind her own business investigating her videotaping her without her permission and forcing her to take polygraph could not be considered adverse employment actions because they had no effect on conditions of employment
C: holding that police officers have probable cause to arrest an individual with a sufficiently similar appearance to the description in a warrant
D: holding that warrantless arrest based on probable cause did not violate the fourth amendment
A.