Metal Detecting in New Hampshire

1. The rule, in full

New Hampshire – RSA 227-C, and it contains the only express metal detecting exemption found anywhere in this project

Read from the consolidated chapter at gc.nh.gov (General Court), parsed locally.

The provision that matters most, RSA 227-C:12(II)

"Treasure hunting with metal detectors and dowsing rods is exempted from the restrictions of this subdivision on the following lands owned or controlled by the state, its agencies, departments, commissions, and institutions, unless an historic resource on such land has been recorded and restrictions are posted: (a) Beaches; (b) Athletic fields; (c) School grounds; (d) Perimeters of cemeteries; (e) Unpaved roads; (f) Within 25 feet of picnic tables and park pavilions; and (g) Currently used dumps."

No other state in the project has anything like this. Every other state either prohibits, requires permission, or is silent. New Hampshire legislated an enumerated permission, naming seven kinds of land, with a single stated condition – a recorded historic resource with posted restrictions. Quote it in full on the page and quote the list as a list. It is the most useful single provision found in the entire state pass.

Note precisely what it covers: land "owned or controlled by the state, its agencies, departments, commissions, and institutions". It does not say political subdivisions, so it does not extend to city parks.

The rest of the chapter

Definition, RSA 227-C:1(IV) – the broadest in the New England family:

"'Field investigation' means the search for, identification of, and evaluation of historic resources, and the study of the traces of human culture at any land or underwater historic property, by means of inspection, surveying, digging, excavating, or removing surface or subsurface objects, or going onto a site with that intent."

The state's reserved right, RSA 227-C:7(I) – narrower than the definition:

"the state, acting through the commissioner, reserves to itself the exclusive right and privilege to conduct, or cause to be conducted, field investigations of historic resources that involve the alteration of the surface or subsurface of the resource and removal of any surface or subsurface objects."

So the sweeping definition is cut back at the point it bites: the reserved right covers only investigations that both alter the ground and remove something. A sweep that finds nothing and digs nothing is outside it.

Penalty, RSA 227-C:17(II):

"any person who knowingly appropriates, excavates, sells, purchases, exchanges, offers for sale, transports, receives, destroys, or in any manner alters any historic resource located on state land, under state waters, or removed from same, except in the course of activities pursued under the authority of a permit or preservation agreement, or as exempted in RSA 227-C:12, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not exceeding $1,000 or by imprisonment for a period not to exceed 6 months, or both; shall forfeit to the state all materials appropriated; and shall reimburse the state for restoration of a defaced or destroyed property."

The split that must not be flattened

The criminal offence is state land only. The title claim is not.

RSA 227-C:6: "The state, acting through the commissioner, reserves to itself title of ownership of all historic resources … on or from:
I. Lands owned or controlled by the state, its agencies, departments, commissions, institutions or political subdivisions."

Read together: digging a historic resource out of a New Hampshire city park is not the RSA 227-C:17 misdemeanour, because that section says "state land". But the object is the State's property and not the finder's, because 227-C:6(I) says political subdivisions. The consequence on municipal land is civil, about ownership, not criminal.

That distinction is the entry. A page that says "New Hampshire prohibits" is wrong, and a page that says "New Hampshire allows" is also wrong. It says: on these seven kinds of state land, go ahead unless it is posted; anywhere on public land in the state including your city park, anything historic you find belongs to the State.

Also recorded: RSA 227-C:10 says certification of avocational archaeologists "is not to be misconstrued as an authorization to collect or excavate without a permit", and RSA 227-C:11 puts a confidentiality duty on political subdivisions over archaeological site locations.

Source: gc.nh.gov RSA XIX 227-C (227-C-mrg.htm), parsed locally. Checked 20 Sep 2026.

2. Where it reaches city and county land

New Hampshire – RSA 227-C:6(I) (title only, no criminal reach)

Qualified entry, and the qualification is the whole point. New Hampshire names political subdivisions in one place and not in the other, and the two provisions have different consequences.

Reaches municipal land – RSA 227-C:6:

"The state, acting through the commissioner, reserves to itself title of ownership of all historic resources, except for human remains …, on or from: I. Lands owned or controlled by the state, its agencies, departments, commissions, institutions or political subdivisions."

Does NOT reach municipal land – RSA 227-C:17(II), the criminal provision:

"any person who knowingly appropriates, excavates, sells, purchases, exchanges, offers for sale, transports, receives, destroys, or in any manner alters any historic resource located on state land, under state waters, or removed from same … shall be guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not exceeding $1,000 or by imprisonment for a period not to exceed 6 months, or both; shall forfeit to the state all materials appropriated."

So on a New Hampshire city park: no misdemeanour, but the historic resource you dug up is the State's property and not yours. A civil ownership consequence, not a criminal one.

This is the sharpest example in the project of why scope has to be read per provision rather than per statute. Both sections sit in the same chapter, a few pages apart, and they answer the municipal question differently. Anyone reading only 227-C:17 would put New Hampshire outside this file; anyone reading only 227-C:6 would put it in alongside Massachusetts. Neither is right.

Definition, RSA 227-C:1(IV) – the broadest of the family, adding "the search for, identification of, and evaluation of historic resources" and "inspection" to the usual formula, and keeping "or going onto a site with that intent".

Axis: activity – but narrowed where it bites. RSA 227-C:7(I) reserves to the state only field investigations "that involve the alteration of the surface or subsurface of the resource and removal of any surface or subsurface objects". Both limbs, conjunctive.

And New Hampshire contains the only express metal detecting permission in the project, RSA 227-C:12(II), exempting "[t]reasure hunting with metal detectors and dowsing rods" on seven enumerated kinds of state land unless a recorded historic resource is posted. It covers state land only – not political subdivisions – so it does not soften the 227-C:6 title claim on city parks. The full quotation is in the New Hampshire entry in STATE-LAND-remaining.md and should be reproduced on the page in full.

Directory entry should read: in New Hampshire, anything of historic significance found on state, county or municipal land belongs to the State. On state land there is no offence at all for detecting on beaches, athletic fields, school grounds, cemetery perimeters, unpaved roads, near picnic tables and pavilions, or current dumps, unless restrictions are posted. On city land there is no criminal provision – but the title claim still applies to what you find.

3. Cities in New Hampshire that publish a rule

Awaiting review. None of the city or county rows publishes until its status is set and its quotation chosen by hand.

4. County rules

Awaiting review. None of the city or county rows publishes until its status is set and its quotation chosen by hand.

5. Cities checked — no published rule

Awaiting review. None of the city or county rows publishes until its status is set and its quotation chosen by hand.