What is the test for determining whether a person has been "seized" by a police officer?

To determine whether the Fourth Amendment is implicated, we do not look to the defendant's experience or the officer's subjective intent, but instead focus on the response of a "`reasonable person.'" (Michigan v. Chesternut (1988) 486 U.S. 567, 574.) "[A] person has been `seized' within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment only if, in view of all the circumstances surrounding the incident, a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave." (United States v. Mendenhall (1980) 446 U.S. 544, 554, fn. omitted.) "Examples of circumstances that might indicate a seizure, even where the person did not attempt to leave, would be 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." (Ibid.) By contrast, a consensual encounter results in no restraint on an individual's liberty, and therefore, no seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. (Wilson v. Superior Court (1983) 34 Cal.3d 777, 784.)