You were probably sent here by a page saying that your state's law does not prohibit metal detecting, but prohibits something else. This page explains what that something else is, and why the distinction decides what you can actually do.
In nine states in this directory, the instrument that reaches furthest – often onto city and county land, sometimes onto private land – does not mention metal detectors at all. What it reaches is taking: excavating, removing, disturbing, appropriating, defacing. The machine is not regulated. What you do to the ground, and what leaves the ground with you, is.
Four of those nine also have a separate rule that names metal detectors in terms. Those rules reach only the state's own land. So the instrument that names your machine and the instrument that reaches your city park are, in those four states, two different instruments with two different answers. That is the thing this group is most often got wrong about, in both directions at once.
The one thing to take away
The rule bites at the moment you dig, not when you switch the machine on.
So the decision point is not the gate. It is the signal. You can lawfully walk the whole park with the coil down and the headphones on. What you cannot do is recover. Every minute of searching is legal and the last ten seconds are the offence.
That has a practical consequence most summaries never draw: if you cannot tell what is under the coil, leaving it is the safe move, because the offence attaches to the recovery and not to the detection. A signal you do not dig cannot get you in trouble in these states. A signal you do dig can, and it is too late to decide once the plug is out.
Four things complicate that, and each of them changes what you should do. But first, the two-instrument problem, because it decides which rule you are even reading.
First check which instrument you are reading
Five of these nine states have no detector rule anywhere: Colorado, Kansas, Texas, Washington and West Virginia. In those five, the removal or disturbance statute is the whole of the state's answer, and the word "detector" appears in none of it.
The other four have two instruments, and the one that names detectors is the narrower one:
| State | The rule that names detectors, and the land it covers | The rule that reaches further |
|---|---|---|
| Georgia | O.C.G.A. 12-3-10(n): unlawful to use "any electronic device for the detection of metals, minerals, artifacts, or lost articles or for treasure hunting" – but 12-3-10(a) confines "park, historic site, or recreational area" to one "operated by or for and … under the custody and control of the department" | 12-3-621, on archaeological and historic sites on any land, including a city's |
| New Mexico | 19.5.2.24 NMAC: "Metal detecting within a state park is prohibited unless a visitor obtains the superintendent's permission to use metal detectors for scientific activities … or to retrieve lost items." State parks system only | NMSA 18-6-9, on "state land" defined to include political subdivisions |
| Oregon | OAR 736-010-0040(11)(d) on OPRD park property, keyed to a published "Detecting Allowed" list; 736-021-0090(11) on the ocean shore; 629-025-0040(11)(a), written permission of the Forester on State Forest Land | ORS 358.920(1), on "public or private lands in Oregon" |
| Florida | Fla. Admin. Code 5I-4.005(1)(k): "Use metal detectors on managed lands" is prohibited – Florida Forest Service land only. State park detecting is governed by Division policy rather than the Code; see when the rule is not in the code | F.S. 267.13(1)(a), on state land, water authority land and designated landmarks, which can sit on city land |
What you do differently: work out whose land you are on before you decide which rule you are reading. On the state's own park or forest land, the detector rule applies and it is usually the stricter one. Step off onto county or city ground and that rule stops, while the removal statute in the right-hand column carries on.
The New Mexico row has a detail worth lifting out: the superintendent's permission is available "to retrieve lost items", which is an ordinary detectorist errand rather than a scientific one. It is a real route and most summaries of New Mexico omit it.
Complication 1: in Colorado you do not have to dig at all
Colorado's verb list opens with "appropriates". C.R.S. 24-80-409(1):
"Any person who knowingly appropriates, excavates, injures, or destroys any historical, prehistorical, or archaeological resource on land owned by the state or any county, city and county, city, town, district, or other political subdivision of the state without a valid permit commits a class 2 misdemeanor. All articles and materials illegally taken and all money and materials derived from the sale or trade of the same shall be forfeited to the society."
Appropriating is taking into your possession. No excavation is required. So in Colorado, bending down and picking up an artefact of genuine historical character lying on the surface of a city park is the offence, with forfeiture attached, and no hole was ever dug.
Colorado is also the broadest state in this group on what counts, because 24-80-401(1) defines the protected class to include not just human culture but "fossils and other remains of animals, plants, insects, and other objects of natural history".
What you do differently in Colorado: the "leave it if unsure" rule has to start before your hand does, not before your trowel does.
Complication 2: West Virginia is not about archaeology at all
Every other state in this group protects things of historical or archaeological character. West Virginia protects everything.
W. Va. Code R. 58-31-2.2:
"No person shall remove any man-made or natural object, material, substance, plant, animal or historical or archeological relic or artifact from a state park, state forest, or state wildlife management area, except those legally acquired through hunting and fishing in accordance with W. Va. Code 20-2-1 et seq. or upon proper authorization in writing by the Chief of Parks and Recreation, Division of Natural Resources."
Read that list. "Any man-made or natural object" comes first, and the historical and archaeological items are added at the end as further examples rather than as the limit. A 1998 quarter is a man-made object. So is a bottle cap.
What you do differently in West Virginia: the practical rule is not "leave anything old". It is that on DNR parks, forests and wildlife management areas you may not take the find out with you, whatever it is, without written authorisation from the Chief of Parks and Recreation. Note also that the scope clause at 58-31-1.1 covers parks, forests and recreation areas in wildlife management areas, and does not reach municipal parks.
Complication 3: the surface exceptions are real, and no two are the same
Three of these states expressly carve out something lying on top of the ground. They are worth quoting side by side, because the differences are the whole point and a summary that merged them would be wrong about all three.
Oregon, ORS 358.920(1)(b):
"Collection of an arrowhead from the surface of public or private land is permitted if collection can be accomplished without the use of any tool."
Arrowheads only, and only with bare hands. Scratch at it with a trowel and the exception is gone.
Washington, RCW 27.53.060(5):
"The provisions of this section shall not apply to the removal of artifacts found exposed on the surface of the ground which are not historic archaeological resources or sites."
Any artefact, not just arrowheads, but only if it is not a historic archaeological resource, which is the judgement the exception leaves with you.
Georgia, O.C.G.A. 12-3-621: artefacts lying on the surface of dry land may be collected. The dry-land limit matters on a riverbank or a lake shore, which is exactly where a detectorist works.
What you do differently: do not carry one state's surface rule into another. "Surface finds are fine" is true in none of these three as stated.
Complication 4: in New Mexico, recognising it is what makes it criminal
NMSA 1978, 18-6-9(A):
"Any person who knowingly excavates, injures or destroys cultural property located on state land without a permit is guilty of criminal damage to property."
And 18-6-9(C)(2): at a value of $1,000 or more it is a fourth degree felony. New Mexico is the only state in this group with felony exposure.
Two features make New Mexico the sharpest case for a reader.
First, "state land" is a defined term that means close to the opposite of its ordinary reading. 18-6-3(E): "'state land' means property owned, controlled or operated by a department, agency, institution or political subdivision of the state." A New Mexico city is a political subdivision, so your city park is "state land" for this Act.
Second, 18-6-3(B) defines "cultural property" to include a single object: "a structure, place, site or object having historic, archaeological, scientific, architectural or other cultural significance." One artefact is within scope on its own. There need be no site around it.
What you do differently in New Mexico: the word "knowingly" is the rule that actually governs your conduct. Digging a modern coin is not knowing excavation of cultural property. Recognising what is under the coil and digging anyway is. Which means the moment of legal jeopardy is the moment you understand what you have found, and the correct response to that recognition is to stop, not to finish the hole.
And one procedural trap: Oregon treats possession as evidence
ORS 358.920(1)(c):
"It is prima facie evidence of a violation of this section if: (A) A person possesses the objects described in paragraph (a) of this subsection; (B) A person possesses any tool that could be used to remove such objects from the ground; and (C) A person does not possess a permit required under ORS 390.235."
So in Oregon the state does not have to show you dug anything. An archaeological object in your pouch, a trowel in your belt, and no permit is enough to make out the case against you, and it is then yours to answer.
What you do differently in Oregon: this is the one state in the group where what you are carrying matters as much as what you did. Oregon's permit, under ORS 390.235, is available only to qualified archaeologists and institutions, so there is no route for a recreational detectorist to hold one.
The scope varies, and it is not a detail
These nine statutes do not all reach the same land. Several reach your city park. Two reach private land. One reaches only state parks and forests. The state page you came from carries its own scope quotation, and that is the one to rely on.
| State | What the instrument reaches | Which land |
|---|---|---|
| Colorado | C.R.S. 24-80-409(1): knowingly appropriating, excavating, injuring or destroying a historical, prehistorical or archaeological resource | State and all political subdivisions, including city land |
| Kansas | K.S.A. 74-5403(a): excavating in, removing material from, vandalising or defacing an archaeological site | State, county and municipal land, plus land under active scientific investigation |
| New Mexico | NMSA 18-6-9(A): knowingly excavating, injuring or destroying cultural property, including a single object; felony at $1,000+ | "State land" defined to include political subdivisions, so city land |
| Washington | RCW 27.53.060(1): knowingly removing, altering, digging into or excavating an archaeological resource or site | "The private and public lands of this state", so private land too |
| Oregon | ORS 358.920(1)(a): excavating, injuring, destroying or altering an archaeological site or object, or removing an archaeological object | "Public or private lands in Oregon", so all land |
| Georgia | O.C.G.A. 12-3-621: digging, probing, removing or disturbing at an archaeological or historic site; surface collecting on dry land excepted | Any land, including a city's; the landowner's written permission is the route |
| Texas | Natural Resources Code ch. 191: disturbing a state archeological landmark, by permit | Sites on state, county and city land are landmarks or eligible for designation |
| Florida | F.S. 267.13(1)(a): conducting field investigations on, or removing, defacing or altering, an archaeological site or specimen | State land, water authority land, and designated landmarks, which can sit on city land |
| West Virginia | W. Va. Code R. 58-31-2.2: removing any man-made or natural object | DNR state parks, forests and WMA recreation areas only. Not municipal |
Two cautions on that table, both of which are on the state pages in full.
Texas has an unresolved question. The statute says qualifying sites on public land "are state archeological landmarks and are eligible for designation". Whether a given site is already a landmark or merely eligible to become one is not something the statutory text settles, and this project has not established it. Do not read the Texas row as a list of known landmarks.
Florida has a second, separate regime on the beach. Under Art. X, s. 11 of the Florida Constitution the sand seaward of the mean high water line is state sovereignty land whoever owns the dry beach, and treasure trove and objects of historical or archaeological value there belong to the state. One beach can sit under two regimes at once, with the boundary moving twice a day and marked by nothing you can see.
What this group is not
None of the nine statutes in the table above prohibits metal detecting. If a site told you that detecting is illegal in a Kansas, Colorado, New Mexico, Washington, Oregon, Georgia, Texas or Florida city park, that is wrong, and it is wrong in a way that matters: it would send you home from a park you were entitled to search.
Note the word "city" in that sentence. In Georgia, New Mexico, Oregon and Florida there is a detector prohibition, and it is real on the state's own park or forest land. What it is not is statewide.
The opposite error is just as common and worse. Being told "there is no rule, go ahead" skips the recovery prohibition entirely, and the recovery is the part with the misdemeanour, the forfeiture and, in New Mexico, the felony attached.
The honest version is the one in the title. You may sweep. You may not take.
Where these quotations come from
Every statutory quotation on this page is reproduced from the state entry it belongs to, and each of those entries records what it was read from, which edition, and on what date. Follow the state link for that sentence. Nine separate publishers are involved and they were read on different days, so there is no single source line that would be true of this page as a whole.
Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Washington and West Virginia were re-read at source on 4 October 2026. Georgia, Oregon, Texas and Florida were read on 21 September 2026.
This page explains the distinction. The state page carries the scope quotation, and the scope is what decides whether the rule reaches your land.