In the Court's Reasoning in Hodari D$.$ it states the decision in the Browerv. Inyo County case from two years earlier $(1989)$ was relevant. How was the Court's decision in Brower v$.$ Inyo County relevant to Hodari D$.?$ Choose the best answer.

Both cases involve factual situations where the police "show of authority" did not cause the defendant to stop during the course of a chase. The cases were treated similarly, in that, fleeing defendants were not considered "seized" for Fourth Amendment purposes, during the time period they were not complying with police injunctions to stop.

Both cases involve factual situations where the police "show of authority" caused the Court to conclude a seizure, for the purpose of the Fourth Amendment, occurred at the time the showing of authority was displayed. Thus, the grounds for the seizure must be reasonable at that time, regardless of whether or not the defendant complies with a police officer's orders.

None of these statements listed are accurate.

The Court never cites to Brower v$.$ Inyo County in this case, its Reasoning does not rely on any past precedent.