With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". a reasonable person would believe that he was not free to leave.” A statement by a law enforcement official that a person is suspected of illegal activity is persuasive evidence that the Fourth Amendment and Article I, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution have been implicated. Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491, 103 S.Ct. 1319, 75 L.Ed.2d 229 (1983) (White, J., plurality); Wright, supra. We believe that appellant could conclude reasonably that the police suspected him of selling illegal narcotics based on the detective’s recitation of the anonymous tip and that he could conclude reasonably that he was not free to leave. Accordingly, we find that appellant was seized by the police when he was questioned in the parking lot. See Commonwealth v. Lewis, 535 Pa. 501, 636 A.2d 619 (1994) (<HOLDING>); Jermaine, supra (indicating that the

A: holding that there was no basis for a reasonable inference that the defendants were cut in on the drug deal when the record indicated that they were willing to perform the required crewmember services with no special inducement
B: holding that officers were entitled to qualified immunity where defendant officers could have reasonably believed that they were given sufficient third party consent to search
C: holding that appellant was seized where he was confronted by four officers who indicated that they were working narcotics and were part of a drug interdiction program
D: holding that when the district court imposed drug testing in connection with a special condition of substance abuse program participation  it was  not required to specify the number of drug tests a defendant must undergo as a part of the treatment program
C.