The second directive attached governs search & seizure.
Particular to open carry:
Of interest to particularly rock-ribbed & stiff-necked people:In order for a police officer to undertake an investigatory stop, the officer must have a reasonable suspicion—based on specific, articulable facts taken together with rational inferences from those facts – that the particular person stopped has been, is, or is about to be, engaged in criminal activity.
State v. Vadnais, 141 N.H. 68, 70 (1996)
The suspect’s conduct must lead somewhere specific, not just to a general sense that this is probably a bad person who may have committed some kind of a crime. Id.
This directive also explains that there are only five exceptions to a warrant requirement for a search: Search incident to an arrest, Stop and frisk (Terry), Plain View, Exigency, Consent.A person who is the subject of an investigatory stop is not required to identify themselves and a police officer may not search his person for identification without that person's consent. See State v. Webber, 141 N.H. 817 (1997)
Since presumably those exercising their civil right to carry openly will not waive their civil right against search, we'll disregard "consent."
A search incident to an arrest requires that "1. There must be a lawful custodial arrest;" - an arrest lacking probable cause that a crime "has been, is, or is about to be committed" is not a "lawful custodial arrest."
A "stop & frisk," aka. "Terry pat-down" has these requirements:
You may have noticed that police frequently point to Terry to justify their harassment of open carriers, but as you can see, neither of these provisions apply to stopping a peaceable open-carrier.1. There must be reasonable suspicion for the police officer to stop a person; and
2. The police officer must have reasonable suspicion to believe that the person is presently armed.
The document further notes:
Given that the pretense for the stop was the presence of the weapon, claiming this warrantless search exception doesn't really make any sense.The search must be strictly confined to what is minimally necessary to
discover the presence of a weapon. See State v. Roach, 141 N.H. 64, 67
An openly carried sidearm is in "plain view," but the MPD directive specifies that the officer must have "probable cause to believe it is evidence of criminal activity."
Exigency, or "emergency situations" encompass the general categories of "rendering emergency aid," "imminent destruction of evidence," and "hot pursuit," none of which pertain to peaceable open carry.
Thus in general, any seizure and search of a peaceable open carrier without any specific indication of criminal activity appears to be a violation of these directives.