6, 11-12, 932 P2d 1177 (1997); State v. Stanley, 153 Or App 16, 22, 955 P2d 764 (1998). The uncontroverted evidence showed that Dahl had an extensive drug enforcement background and that he believed that defendant was a methamphetamine manufacturer. During the course of the co nt to justify a warrantless search. State v. Walker, 173 Or App 46, 51-52, 20 P3d 834 (2001). Defendant’s most vigorous challenge is to the trial court’s further necessary conclusion that the car was mobile. Defendant acknowledges that the proper focus is on the car’s mobility when it was stopped, but he does not address the issue of when the car was stopped. Arguably, Dahl’s initial encounter with Johnson did not constitute a stop. See State v. Lane, 135 Or App 233, 238, 898 P2d 1358, rev den 322 Or 360 (1995) (<HOLDING>). However, the state does not dispute that at
holding that traffic stop ceases to become a detention and becomes a consensual encounter when police officer returns license and registration unless driver has objectively reasonable cause to believe that he or she is not free to leave holding that a person is seized when a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave 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 flashing police lights convey message that car occupants not free to leave holding use of overhead lights was sufficient show of police authority that reasonable person would not feel free to leave