302, 309 (4th Cir.2002). A seizure requires “either physical force ... or, where that is absent, submission to the assertion of authority.” California v. Ho-dari D., 499 U.S. 621, 626, 111 S.Ct. 1547, 113 L.Ed.2d 690 (1991) (emphasis omitted). The facts of this case, viewed in the light most favorable to the Appellants, could not establish that a “seizure” by either physical force or submission to an assertion of authority occurred. A seizur 833, 843-44, 118 S.Ct. 1708, 140 L.Ed.2d 1043 (1998). Cook fled from BCPD officers as they approached him; there is no evidence in the record that they ever made physical contact with Cook, nor is there evidence that they terminated his “freedom of movement through means intentionally applied.” Contrast Brower, 489 U.S. at 597-98, 109 S.Ct. 1378 (<HOLDING>). When an officer acts by a show of authority
holding no seizure occurred when after defendant began to walk away officer directed him to stop holding that where the police roadblock was intended to stop brower by physical impact and did so a seizure occurred holding that no seizure occurred where shots were fired at a truck but did not hit the suspect because they failed to produce a stop holding police officers show of authority by announcing he was a police officer and ordering defendant to stop was an investigative seizure implicating fourth amendment protections holding that for purposes of determining whether the roadblock worked a fourth amendment seizure the controlling considerations are whether 1 the motorist was meant to be stopped by the physical obstacle of the roadblock and 2 the motorist was so stopped