IANAL, but I live in the Fourth Circuit, which has eviscerated Terry v. Ohio in its own case, U.S. v. Robinson (2017). In that case, the Fourth Circuit essentially rewrote Terry's requirement that a suspect must be "armed AND dangerous" into a new standard which is "armed IS dangerous," therefore, ANY suspect that is armed, is subject to Terry for no other reason whatsoever.

That is why I originally asked about the prospect of this case being appealed to the Third Circuit, where, if upheld, it would set up a Circuit split that SCOTUS might eventually consider to resolve.

From my reading of this case, it seems that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has upheld the original meaning of Terry, that one must be able to articulate BOTH armed AND dangerous to justify a detention. The particular location of those involved in the evaluation of those requirements does not seem to be at issue.

TFred