With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". in a jurisdiction adjacent to the City of Danville. However, the appellant does not dispute that the detective had authority to make an arrest for behavior that she observed within a one-mile radius of Danville and that the final traffic infraction that she saw him commit earlier that day occurred within this one-mile radius. See Code § 19.2-250(A). 4 . The appellant’s assignment of error challenges only the validity of the initial seizure and does not independently contest what happened afterward. Additionally, to the extent that he attempts in the argument portion of his brief to contest the officer’s act of ordering him to return to his vehicle, this argument is without merit. See, e.g., Alston v. Commonwealth, 40 Va.App. 728, 733-35, 741-43, 581 S.E.2d 245, 248, 252-53 (2003) (<HOLDING>); see also Brendlin v. California, 551 U.S.

A: holding that injury of plaintiff  who was detained in negligently parked patrol car that along with another patrol car was struck by thirdparty vehicle  did not arise out of use or operation of patrol car within meaning of ttcas motorvehicle waiver rather patrol car merely furnished condition that made injury possible
B: holding that search of car was not incident to arrest where arrestee had exited and locked car before he was approached by officer and then arrested
C: holding that officers detaining a driver who parked and exited his car quickly as they approached in their patrol vehicle did not violate his fourth amendment rights by requiring him to get back in his car before questioning him
D: holding mr contrisciane was occupying his insured vehicle when he was struck and killed by an uninsured vehicle after leaving his car to walk over to patrol car with his drivers information as directed by police officer
C.