With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". arrest, or “seizure,” has been removed. Dunaway v. New York, 442 U.S. 200, 204, 99 S.Ct. 2248, 60 L.Ed.2d 824 (1979). Therefore, the first step in our inquiry is to determine whether or not Appellant was “seized” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Id. at 206-07, 99 S.Ct. 2248. A law enforcement officer can seize a person by either the use of physical force or a show of authority to which the person submits. California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621, 625, 111 S.Ct. 1547, 113 L.Ed.2d 690 (1991); Johnson v. State, 912 S.W.2d 227, 232 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995). A show of authority occurs when, considering the totality of the circumstances, a reasonable person would have believed he was not free to leave. Michigan v. Chesternut, 486 U.S. 567, 573, 108 S.Ct. 1975, 100 L.Ed.2d 565 (1988) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544,

A: holding that an encounter is a seizure if in view of all of the circumstances surrounding the incident a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave
B: holding that in determining whether a seizure has occurred a court must consider if in view of all of the circumstances surrounding the encounter a reasonable person would have believed that he or she was not free to leave
C: recognizing that a person has been seized within the meaning of the fourth amendment only if in view of all of the circumstances surrounding the incident a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave
D: holding that a person is seized when a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave
D.