purposes until he or she repeats a command. To the contrary, in determining whether there has been a show of authority, courts must examine all of the surrounding circumstances to determine whether a reasonable person would have felt free to decline the interaction with law enforcement. See Brendlin, 551 U.S. at 255, 127 S.Ct. 2400. In Mendenhall, Justice Stewart identified such factors as “the threatening presence of several officers, the display of a weapon by an officer, some physical touching of the person of the citizen, or the use of language or tone of voice indicating that compliance with the officer’s request might be compelled.” United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544, 554, 100 S.Ct. 1870, 64 L.Ed.2d 497 (1980) (opinion of Stewart, J.). Here, three marke 3d Cir.2009) (<HOLDING>). On this record, the officers’ approach
holding that asking defendant for identification was not a seizure absent evidence that the officer used language or a tone of voice indicating that compliance might be compelled holding that no seizure occurred where officers boarded bus and began questioning passengers gave passengers no reason to believe that they required an answer and tjhere was no application of force no intimidating movement no overwhelming show of force no brandishing of weapons no blocking of exits no threat no command not even an authoritative tone of voice holding that a show of authority occurred when two uniformed police officers approached a house and commanded that people on the porch show their hands holding that there was no question that the full and fair opportunity element was met where there was no indication that such an opportunity was unavailable holding that there was no show of authority when two officers repeatedly asked an individual where is your girls house but where the two officers were still in their car neither officer displayed his weapon there was no physical touching and no indication as to the language or tone of the officers voice that might have signaled a clear show of authority