With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". was insufficient to convict him. The District Court denied these motions. Wrensford and Muller appeal. II A Wrensford argues that the District Court erred in denying his motion to suppress because his involuntary transportation to the police station and detention in a cell constituted an arrest without probable cause, in violation of the Fourth Amendment. We agree and conclude that Wrensford’s transportation to C Command and placement in a cell was a de facto arrest. The Fourth Amendment provides: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause....” U.S. Const. amend. IV. A “seizure” occurs when, “taking i 19 (plurality opinion) -(<HOLDING>); Dunaway v. New York, 442 U.S. 200, 207, 212,

A: holding that escorting the defendant from a baggage claim area to a dea office approximately 75 yards away was an arrest and that his consent to the search of his bag in that office was tainted by the illegal seizure
B: holding that the defendant had been subjected to an illegal arrest when after detectives requested and did not return his airline ticket and drivers license he was asked to come with the officers from the concourse into an interrogation room approximately 40 feet away where his suitcases were searched
C: holding fourth amendment not implicated when police officers approached defendant who was standing outside of an airport terminal and asked to see his airline ticket and identification
D: holding that the defendant was not seized where one officer read information from the defendants airline ticket and another officer took notes observing that the officers immediately returned the ticket after examination and did not retain the ticket for an unusual length of time
B.