that they had to stay where they were for fear of force or arrest. See Driebel v. Milwaukee, 298 F.3d 622, 642 (7th Cir.2002) (determining that a police station employee was not seized when he was ordered to work overtime and “stand by” for three and one-half hours in the police garage, because there was “no evidence suggesting that he would have been prevented from leaving the garage had he refused to obey”). Indeed, the complaint asserts that Deputy Krieger followed the plaintiffs repeatedly, meaning that they continued to go about their daily business in spite of being followed and watched. These allegations ovements to the public generally, the Fourth Amendment is no bar to her being watched by police officers. See United States v. Sandoval-Vasquez, 435 F.3d 739, 743 (7th Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Tolar, 268 F.3d 530, 532
holding that when a police officer observes something from an area where the officer is lawfully entitled to be anything that is in open view may be observed without having to obtain a search warrant because making such open view observations does not constitute a search in the constitutional sense holding that no intentional police misrepresentation occurred holding that where the defendant dropped cocaine during the course of an illegal police search no voluntary abandonment occurred holding that police officers have no affirmative duty to search out favorable evidence for the defendant holding that no search occurred when police officers entered an open business