Therefore, the court concluded that G.M. was not seized until after the officer had already witnessed him in possession of marijuana and ordered him to spit it out. Id. In this case, the question is whether appellant was seized before the officer approached his vehicle and smelled the marijuana. Activation of emergency police lights is one factor to be considered in a totality-of-the-circumstances analysis of whether a seizure has occurred. G.M., 19 So.3d at 974. Likewise, use of a spotlight or flashlight is another factor to be considered in evaluating whether a person would reasonably believe he was free to leave, but the use of a spotlight, without more, does not transform a consensual encounter into an investigatory stop. See State v. Goodwin, 36 So.3d 925, 927 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (<HOLDING>). Here, the officer activated his emergency
holding that an encounter was consensual where the defendant was comfortable during the encounter chose not to leave and acquiesced to the officers request to answer questions holding that the officers mere use of her spotlight and flashlight did not transform the consensual encounter into an investigatory stop holding that the return of a defendants drivers license after a traffic stop can convert what was a brief seizure into a consensual encounter even where the officer questions the defendant about criminal activity immediately thereafter holding officers request for passengers identification during stop constituted lawful consensual encounter recognizing that once a completed traffic stop evolves into a consensual encounter there is no seizure and the fourth amendment is not implicated