With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". In State v. Rucker, 374 Md. 199, 821 A.2d 439 (2003), however, the Court of Appeals held that a similar stop did not constitute an arrest: [The officer] parked his patrol car behind [appellant’s vehicle]. There was no vehicle occupying the space in front of the [appellant’s vehicle] at the time. As [the appellant] was getting into the driver’s side of the [appellant’s vehicle], [the officer] called to him in an attempt to get his attention, walked to him, and requested [the appellant’s] license and registration. [Appellant] asked, “what’s going on,” the [officer] just repeated his original request, and [appellant] subsequently complied. [The officer] was uniformed and armed, but his weapon was not drawn, and he “made no physical contact with [appellant].” Id. at 204, 821 A.2d 439 (<HOLDING>). Citing Morton v. State, 284 Md. 526, 397 A.2d

A: holding that the forceable stop at issue was an investigatory stop rather than an arrest
B: holding that an initially lawful terry stop can be converted into a fullfledged arrest for which probable cause is required but noting that there is no bright line rule for determining when an investigatory stop crosses the line and becomes an arrest
C: holding that reasonable suspicion is required to prolong a traffic stop after the purpose for which the investigatory stop was instituted has been accomplished
D: holding that a tip may provide the reasonable suspicion necessary to justify an investigatory stop
A.