With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 1 . State v. Jones, Order No. 00903020716, 2009 WL 3338100 (Del.Super.Sept. 11, 2009). 2 . Williams v. State, 962 A.2d 210, 214 (Del.2008) (citing Lopez-Vazquez v. State, 956 A.2d 1280, 1284 (Del.2008)). 3 . Id. 4 . Id. 5 . 499 U.S. 621, 111 S.Ct. 1547, 113 L.Ed.2d 690 (1991). 6 . Id. at 625-26, 111 S.Ct. 1547. 7 . Jones v. State, 745 A.2d 856, 869 (Del.1999). See also Loper v. State, 8 A.3d 1169, 1173-74 (Del.2010); Moore v. State, 997 A.2d 656, 663-64 (Del.2010); Williams, 962 A.2d at 215-16; Lopez-Vazquez, 956 A.2d at 1286 n. 6; Ross v. State, 925 A.2d 489, 493-94 (Del.2007); Harris v. State, 806 A.2d 119, 124 (Del.2002); Flonnory v. State, 805 A.2d 854, 858 (Del.2001); Woody v. State, 765 A.2d 1257, 1264 (Del.2001). 8 . Williams, 962 A.2d at 215-16. See also Ross, 925 A.2d at 494 (<HOLDING>). 9 . Muehler v. Mena, 544 U.S. 93, 101, 125

A: holding that allowing suspect to speak with his wife in the presence of a police officer was not interrogation as it did not fall into any of these categories
B: holding that police procedures set forth in the transportation article requiring officers to detain and investigate drunk drivers did not provide injured pedestrian with a civil cause of action absent police assuming a special relationship
C: holding that the presence of uniformed police officers following a walking pedestrian and requesting to speak with him without doing anything more does not constitute a seizure
D: holding that without evidence of a warrant to explain the officers presence the jury would have been left scratching its collective head about what the police were doing at the defendants girlfriends apartment in the first place
C.