WOW, i should mark this date on the calender because it's very rare that i disagree with you. i have to say i'd consider it concealed. i'm not saying i'd charge someone with it, but i wouldn't consider it OC, if it was only the clip exposed.
Ah, good ol' pocket clip issue again.
It's rarely enumerated in written law. Many times it's up to case law, and there have been cases that go both ways.
a) Court rules it is open carry because the officer was able to tell it was a knife in the first place. If the officer could not tell it was a knife, he would never have pursued it, therefore it cannot be considered concealed. Defendant is found not-guilty of concealed weapon.
b) Court rules it is still concealed because the officer's "trained eye" was able to recognize it, but allegedly the average person would not be able to tell the knife for what it is. Defendant is found guilty of concealed weapon.
There is no directly applicable case law for ND that I can find.
State v. Beane may be a little illustrative: The defendant was being questioned by two parole officers and had a folder clipped to his pocket. This did not get the officers attention, not until he refused to take his hands away from it and starting backing up away from them. They took him down, took his knife and found drugs. The knife was not considered a crime, but the drugs were. Beane was moron if you ask me because the parole officers weren't even looking for him, just a guy he associated with.
It is interesting to note that in ND, the high court has multiple times struck down convictions obtained by "Terry Searches," one because the objects felt during a frisk were obviously not weapons (they were drugs,
State v. Harlan), and another because there was no reasonable suspicion (
State v. Brockel).
