suspicion existed to stop Robison’s motor vehicle. We disagree. The record is undisputed that Officer Branco never stopped Robison’s vehicle. See State v. Hulihee, 87 Hawai'i 487, 489-90, 960 P.2d 157, 159-60 (App.1998). Instead, Officer Branco approached and talked to Robison only after Robison had first parked and exited his vehicle, gone into a service station store to conduct some business at an ATM, and thereafter exited the store. Therefore, HRS § 286-259(e) is not applicable. B. There Were Specific and Articulable Facts to Warrant Robison’s Seizure. Robison was clearly “seized” in a constitutional sense when Officer Branco approached him for the express purpose of investigating a report of a hazardous driver. See State v. Kearns, 75 Haw. 558, 567, 867 P.2d 903, 907 (1994) (<HOLDING>). A warrant-less seizure of an individual may
holding that a police officer who approaches a parked car and questions its occupants has not shown sufficient authority to cause a reasonable person to believe that he or she is not free to leave holding that once the defendant has submitted to the control of the officer and the process of taking him or her to the police station  has commenced his or her arrest is complete and he or she is in custody for the purposes of the escape statute holding that a person is seized for purposes of article i section 7 of the hawaii constitution when a police officer approaches that person for the express or implied purpose of investigating him or her for possible criminal violations and begins to ask for information holding that a person is seized when a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave holding that attorneys claim for professional services against person sui juris or against property of such person must rest upon contract of employment express or implied made with person sought to be charged or with his agent