was relevant to our seizure determination. See 936 F.2d 1561, 1567 (10th Cir.1991). But, in making our seizure determination, we also relied on the fact the suspect was in a car followed for several blocks by a police car with its overhead lights activated before it pulled over and he exited and verbally responded to the officers' show of authority before fleeing on foot. Id. at 1565-67. Moreover, it does not appear, as here, the suspect in Morgan continued to elude police for days before his apprehension. While we indicated in Morgan that momentary yielding to a show of authority may be relevant to a seizure determination, we recognize other circuits have held momentary termination of movement does not constitute a seizure. See United States v. Baldwin, 496 F.3d 215, 218 (2d Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Valentine, 232 F.3d 350, 359
holding that unless suspect clearly requests counsel police do not have to halt questioning holding to constitute a seizure a suspect must do more than halt temporarily he must submit to police authority holding that to grant a new trial the error must be more than harmless holding that to constitute persecution harm must be more than harassment holding suspect must unambiguously request counsel before applying rule established in edwards that police questioning must cease once suspect requests counsel during interview