With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". would likely have extra security given the possibility that he was armed and trained himself. The trial court found the testimony of the law enforcement officers more credible than Appellant’s with respect to the 3:00 a.m. encounter. The trial court noted that Appellant’s girlfriend witnessed the confrontation and disagreed with Appellant’s claim that the officers had their weapons drawn and raised at Appellant when he opened his apartment door. Under the facts as found by the trial court, Appellant came to the door and saw multiple officers, but did not see weapons drawn and pointed at him. Accordingly, the trial court’s conclusion that Appellant made his incriminating statements prior to his actual seizure is supported by the record. See G.M. v. State, 19 So.3d 973, 978 (Fla.2009) (<HOLDING>); State v. Ojeda, 147 So.3d 53, 57 (Fla. 3d DCA

A: holding that a totality of the circumstances review applies to determining whether police conduct constitutes a seizure
B: holding reasonable suspicion is based on totality of circumstances
C: holding that admissibility of a confession is governed by determining from the totality of the circumstances whether or not it was made voluntarily
D: recognizing that totality of circumstances must be considered in determining permissible inferences
A.