With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". seized is not supported by substantial evidence. I would find that the initial encounter of the officers with the youths was consensual in nature. As such, I would hold that the officer’s protective frisk of Jason L. was objectively reasonable having just discovered two weapons on his companion and consequently that Jason L.’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures was not violated. Therefore, I would reverse the district court’s order suppressing the weapons. 1 . This factor requires courts to consider the characteristics of the defendant "in seeking to determine whether even a facially innocuous encounter might, in the circumstances, have overborne the citizen’s freedom to walk away.” United States v. Black, 675 F.2d 129, 134 (7th Cir.1982) (<HOLDING>). In United States v. Seventy-Three Thousand,

A: holding that a dog that was destroyed by the police department was obviously  seized within the meaning of the fourth amendment
B: holding that defendant as an articulate intelligent young man was not so naive or vulnerable to coercion that special protection from police contacts was required by the fourth amendment
C: holding that the notice requirement found in rule 41d is not required by the fourth amendment
D: holding that duress or coercion would invalidate a contract if the coercion comes from the opposing party not the claimants attorney
B.