Md. 496, 723 A.2d 423 (1999): Notwithstanding this gratuitous language in Bouldin and its incantation in a number of Maryland cases since, this Court has never held that a valid arrest in Maryland requires of the arresting officer an intent to prosecute the arrestee for the crime believed to have been committed. Despite Bouldin’s reference, in dicta, to an intent to prosecute within the Maryland common law definition of arrest, neither that case nor . any other case decided by this Court has rested upon the determination that an intent to prosecute is a prerequisite to a valid arrest. 1921, 32 L.Ed.2d 612 (1972) (extending Terry to a stop based on a reliable informant’s tip that defendant was armed and carrying illegal drugs); Derricott v. State, 327 Md. 582, 587, 611 A.2d 592 (1992) (<HOLDING>); Flores v. State, 120 Md.App. 171, 182, 706
holding that an officer can stop an individual if the officer has reasonable articulable suspicion that criminal activity is underfoot holding that an officer  may detain a person in order to determine identity and circumstance when that officer has a reasonable suspicion supported by articulable facts that criminal activity may be afoot recognizing that police officer may stop a suspect if the officer has a reasonable suspicion supported by articulable facts that criminal activity may be afoot holding that a police officer may stop a driver where the officer has a reasonable and articulable suspicion regarding the commission of a civil traffic violation holding that absent probable cause to arrest a police officer may approach an individual to conduct a brief investigatory stop when the officer has a reasonable articulable suspicion that criminal conduct is afoot