searches and seizures by the government. U.S. Const. Amend. IV; Elkins v. United States, 364 U.S. 206, 213, 80 S.Ct. 1437, 4 L.Ed.2d 1669 (1960) (applying Fourth Amendment protections to states and state actors through Fourteenth Amendment). A person is seized if “taking into account all of the circumstances surrounding the encounter, the police conduct would have communicated to a reasonable person that he was not at liberty to ignore the police presence and go about his business.” United States v. Washington, 387 F.3d 1060, 1068 (9th Cir. 2004) (“Washington I”) (quoting Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429, 437, 111 S.Ct. 2382, 115 L.Ed.2d 389 (1991) (internal quo tation marks omitted)); see also United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544, 554, 100 S.Ct. 1870, 64 L.Ed.2d 497 (1980) (<HOLDING>). DISCUSSION Defendant argues that the firearm
holding that a person is seized when a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave holding that an encounter is a seizure if in view of all of the circumstances surrounding the incident a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave holding seizure of evidence in plain view reasonable under fourth amendment recognizing that a person has been seized within the meaning of the fourth amendment only if in view of all of the circumstances surrounding the incident a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave holding that progressive intrusion into defendants privacy was of such a nature that a reasonable person would not believe that he or she was free to end the encounter