Legality of MDing parks and curb strips

[foiler]

The subject of curb strips has been covered extensively on this board and others. I didn't realize there is still a question about ownership. Curb strips in front of private residences within city or township limits are part of the lot on which the house resides. In some cases the lot line may extend to the center of the road in front and or side of said house. The responsibility for maintenance of said strips are of the owner. The property is taxed as part of the lot. The legal term to which government is involved is through an "easement". This gives the local government certain rights of access. It also, to a limited degree give passage or usage rights to the public. These rights are limited. The property owner has the right to question, limit and stop any action they deem to be inappropriate that isn't provided for in the easement rights. Curb strips in front of businesses may or may not be part of the business property. That varies city to city, town to town. But the same rules would apply. I hunt curb strips all the time. If an owner doesn't want you there, leave. There are miles and miles or curb strips to hunt. The few feet in front of a particular owners house is of little consequence. Happy hunting, and fill your holes, don't leave a mess.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Diving for Pleasure and Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[Treasure_Hunter]

Ownership of curbs vary from city to city, some are owned by homeowners and some by city or county...

 

[T.C.]

Exactly...ROW's and easements are two different animals. Easements are your property, but you are allowing utilities to place their conduit, pipe, etc. on your easement. ROW's are owned outright by the "road department". Whether you still pay taxes on it or not....I'm not quite sure.

Ownership of curbs vary from city to city, some are owned by homeowners and some by city or county...

 

[cudamark]

What an on-topic reply, good sir. Thank you!

I agree. I do not think this state antiquities law would be invoked automatically for any parks or curb strips that don't constitute archaeological, historical, or architectural interests. And as for the "optional" landmark designations by the Dept, those have to be marked with a sign. So as long as the land is public property of the state or its political subdivisions, typical parks and curb strips would not be protected by the antiquities law, so the only rule would be getting permission from the owner (ie, the city).

Obviously if the curb strips are private property, none of this analysis is necessary, and simple permission is the only requirement.

Thanks for your contribution, cudamark.

The only thing I disagree with here is the need to ask permission from government to do something. All the laws I see on the books are ones that forbid an activity or add conditions to something we're already allowed to do. They don't grant permission in themselves. Asking somebody for that permission just adds to the confusion as they usually don't know the law any more than any one of us. You just end up adding their bias (either good or bad) to the mix. Just read the law yourself as it applies to what you plan to do. If there are no prohibitions, I'd go ahead with my plans.....using courtesy,common sense, and discretion, of course. You'll find out soon enough if there is some major objection to what you're doing. If you're polite, you'll just be told to quit what you're doing. At that point, find out what code they say you're violating, and review it to see if it actually applies to your situation. If it does, and they regularly enforce it, your next battle is in the political arena where you might be able to change the law. If it doesn't apply to your activity, it may just be a whim or personal quirk of whoever told you to stop and not an actual law forbidding it.

 

[cudamark]

Exactly...ROW's and easements are two different animals. Easements are your property, but you are allowing utilities to place their conduit, pipe, etc. on your easement. ROW's are owned outright by the "road department". Whether you still pay taxes on it or not....I'm not quite sure.

That's pretty much the same as my area. Easements are the limited right of use for specific reasons on your private property that you pay taxes on. In our case, the sidewalk, grass strip, curb, and street are city owned. You don't have any ownership rights or pay taxes on that area either, but, you are required to maintain it......though that generally isn't enforced, judging by the unkempt condition of some strips and the buckled sidewalks and curbs from tree roots. According to law, the homeowner is responsible for those repairs, but, I've never seen it done. It's always been the city that has repaired the sidewalks and curbs around here.

 

[wmpwi]

There are certainly some situations where there may be ambiguity. Recently, I was in a park with a small beach area. I noticed a sign with all the park rules and down the list a ways was a rule prohibiting excavation (local ordinance). That got me thinking about who it was that would be deciding what constituted 'excavation' and how it fit in with my little trowel or sand scoop, particularly in the event a local deputy sheriff pops up. I'm not sure he'd be in complete agreement with my concept of excavation, but more importantly (and more likely), how would a judge or magistrate interpret my behavior. I've spent enough time working with them to know I'd rather not be having that discussion. Whether it be curb strips, parks, or whatever, it pays to know what the applicable rule, ordinance, regulations, or law. Still, running afoul of some adversarial citizen who, right or wrong, has seen fit to screw with my day. It's not worth the potential downside.
That's my .02
Some very good discussion here.
Thanks for that.

 

[cudamark]

There are so many things incorrect or inconsistent about this reply it makes my head spin, but the bottom line is that it is off topic. 1) The city extends a license (a legal term) for recreational activities at parks but anything else is trespassing or worse. 2) The property owner gets to determine what is innocuous and harmless and permitted by the license, not you. 3) Boilerplate is not a derogatory term; it's like common sense; concepts have become boilerplate because they have been used over and over again; it is in some ways more important and informative than special non-boilerplate language. 4) I entered the hobby with the intent of finding relics under my own property and elsewhere if allowed; I did not ever intend on stealing from others, and that includes property of the government. 5) Attitudes and disrespect for the property of others is why this hobby has a negative reputation. In the past I have had to convince property owners that I am NOT a guy espousing the views you have shared above to assuage their concerns and get permission to dig.

But again, bottom line, these replies were off topic.

!. The "license" you speak of is open ended. It only specifies what you can't do, or, conditions of use, such as requiring a reservation for the gazebo or picnic area. If what you plan to do isn't written down as being prohibited, then it's allowed, until subsequent law is enacted.
2. Correct, but, it's not a secret. If it's a law, it has to be written down somewhere for all to see. Look it up yourself to determine if it applies to you.
3. I've seen "boilerplate" forms that had little to do with the topic at hand, but, applied just the same. That's an issue for another day.
4. I would have to hear your definition of stealing "property of the government" before commenting on that. When do lost items suddenly become government property? Immediately? After a day, week, year, decade?
5. On private property, I would agree. On public property, I will only try to return items of value that can be positively identified, such as rings, wallets, phones, etc, that have some sort of mark or clear way to determine who lost it. This is not going to apply to coins, junk jewelry, bullets and other military artifacts, or anything else in common use without such marks. Unless the government has laid official claim to such items (I.E. historical site, archie dig, posted off limits, ARPA, etc) I consider them to not be the owner, but, fair game for anyone who finds them.
These points may be slightly off the OP's original topic, but, certainly related to the discussion here.

 

[cudamark]

There are certainly some situations where there may be ambiguity. Recently, I was in a park with a small beach area. I noticed a sign with all the park rules and down the list a ways was a rule prohibiting excavation (local ordinance). That got me thinking about who it was that would be deciding what constituted 'excavation' and how it fit in with my little trowel or sand scoop, particularly in the event a local deputy sheriff pops up. I'm not sure he'd be in complete agreement with my concept of excavation, but more importantly (and more likely), how would a judge or magistrate interpret my behavior. I've spent enough time working with them to know I'd rather not be having that discussion. Whether it be curb strips, parks, or whatever, it pays to know what the applicable rule, ordinance, regulations, or law. Still, running afoul of some adversarial citizen who, right or wrong, has seen fit to screw with my day. It's not worth the potential downside.
That's my .02
Some very good discussion here.
Thanks for that.

That's a good question. If you sift sand with your scoop, have you legally "excavated"? Not in my book since the same sand is going back into the same area, but, that's where interpretation comes into play.

 

[cudamark]

HOWEVER, I do not think the intent of the antiquities law is to protect a 1989 penny at a city park, and I do think its intent is to protect an American Indian burial. What about a buffalo coin? Civil War bullet? Revolutionary bayonet scabbard? Common American Indian arrowhead? Here lies the question of statutory interpretation, i.e., the meaning of "archaeological." That's the margin of risk for the detectorist, and it's a judgment call, just like it's a judgment call how fast you are comfortable going over the speed limit. At a certain speed you think you're probably committing a violation, but you're comfortable with the risk that i) you might not get caught, ii) you might just get a warning or not pulled over at all, or iii) your speedometer might be inaccurate. Cost-benefit analysis. Maybe THIS is the point you are making?

Lord, how hard is it to ask a group of metal detector hobbyists how they hunt public lands legally? It scares me that only one person had an answer, i.e., that the common findings are not archaeologically significant so as to invoke the state antiquities law.[/QUOTE]
I think you're beginning to see what some of us are talking about. I most areas, there are no hard and fast rules regarding metal detecting. Other rules that were made for different circumstances sometimes get morphed into including us when the original intent was for something completely different. Most of the park prohibitions for digging, altering, molesting, etc, were for the protection of the park's floral assets, and predate metal detectors by many years if not decades. They didn't want people landscaping their own property by taking stuff from the local park. The items we're after and finding are things that the parks department didn't buy, supply, or install there. These items were lost by private parties and not subject to government ownership or control, other than posted laws regarding such losses (I.E. lost and found laws, sensitive areas, historical areas, etc) which might require permission for such a recovery.

 

[cudamark]

Funny how some people criticize and avoid some laws but invoke others when it suits their interests.

I think that's pretty much standard operating procedure for lawyers, isn't it? Would you site a law detrimental to your case?

 

[cudamark]

Of course not, although just about all of you have insulted me. I didn't ever ask if I could get away with curb strip or city park metal detecting, but for some reason that's what keeps being discussed. I asked a very narrow question, and only a couple people responded on topic. The rest has been tangents and soap boxing. I have been really disappointed in the professionalism of most of the replies. I asked the question to develop my knowledge base and grow, but you and Tom have just mocked my profession and the fact that I dared to even ASK my question at all. Heaven forbid we learn the legal framework that governs our hobby so we can make more informed decisions about the risks we take.

And I am scratching my head at what part of my posts sounded like I was trying to impress anyone with lawyer speak? None of my posts were wordsmithed very carefully. If something I wrote came across as brainy, I don't know what to tell you other than we have different thresholds of impressive language. I don't know if you and Tom would have attacked me or my question if I had omitted my profession, but it seems like it. You either consider me a liar or didn't read my original post where I explained that I didn't really like most lawyers myself. I'm not "that guy," which is why I am able to enjoy this hobby, get my hands in the dirt, and get excited over monetarily worthless relics that show some history. In fact I think my profession and experience makes me appreciate the hobby even more, at least the relic hunting component, because it has taught me more about history, land records, taxes, etc., than I would have otherwise learned on my own, at least within the same timeframe.

Unless anyone has any helpful on-topic replies to my original question about whether my state's law is an outlier, I'm not going to respond again. This is about the worst way this thread could have gone.

Don't get discouraged Jamie, I enjoy a good discussion with someone who can pose a good question or come up with a good point of view, and can support their position. No offense given or taken by me to anyone who responded. Good topic! Something we all have to think about if we are to pursue our hobby.

 

[Cassews]

Wow ...lots of answers and one could on debating for quite a while on this thread.

 

[jamiefind]

I think that's pretty much standard operating procedure for lawyers, isn't it? Would you site a law detrimental to your case?

Good one. lol Unfortunately that is standard operating procedure for most litigators, and it drives me crazy. I have always felt the best way to handle case law that works against your argument is to go ahead and get it out there so at least you can "manage the discussion." Don't let the other side enjoy any gotcha moments, etc.

On Permission. I definitely understand the feeling that laws forbid activities or add conditions to something we're already allowed to do. After all, that's our day to day experience with laws, they usually tell us what we can't do or how we can't do it. And because of that, it's totally understandable to think that we members of the public have a right to do what we consider harmless activities at a government park so long as it's not specifically disallowed.

A lot of us, myself included, refer to "public" and "private" lands, but maybe it should be clarified what we mean. In everyday conversation, "public" or "private" land just refers to access. A city maintenance yard is usually private, and a retail store is public. I cannot think of any example of property literally owned by the public other than in the most theoretical and impractical sense.

Almost no private individuals have gone through the trouble to construct a park, a parking lot, and a sign reading "PARK." Cities have. So I guess that's why we (at least I) often refer to public vs. private lands, but what I really mean is public-access vs. private-access lands.

But suppose I do construct a walking trail on my land and post a sign near the road stating: "WALKING TRAIL / OPEN TO PUBLIC." A court would say that I have now extended a "license" to members of the public permitting them to enter my land and walk on my trail. However, the court would say that strangers would not be allowed to fish in my pond or sleep on my trail. I would not have to post a rule against fishing or sleeping; I simply never gave anyone permission to fish or sleep there in the first place. I extended a limited license. It's the exact same thing with city property. Land owned by the city does not have any weird underlying special characteristics. The city owns the property just like a private individual owns property. The difference is that the city spent the time and money to set aside part of its property and develop a public park. It's still privately-owned property; it's just accessible to the public. The city owns the land and has the right to do whatever it wants to do with it (with irrelevant exceptions). The city can prohibit everyone from trespassing on the land just like I can do with my own property, and the city can revoke someone's permission to be there at any time and for no reason.

However, I know that's not the argument of someone like Tom (right, Tom?). He will correct me if I am speaking out of turn, but I believe his opinion is that metal detecting is an activity that falls within the license granted to members of the public by the city. That's a really fair argument, I think, and I would go to bat for that argument any day. But for me, and Tom basically said this, I'm the kind of guy that needs something a little more definite. Even if I can just get the city hall receptionist to say that she's sure it's fine as long as I'm not digging up holes and leaving them and carrying a big shovel, at least then I could point to some sorta-kinda "permission" in case of a confrontation in the field. I agree with Tom that it's not really a legal thing. My secretary excuse is not going to win any argument with a cop, although I think it might persuade a grumpy old lady to leave me alone, or it might just help me "save face" with a cop. It won't yield any substantive wins or losses related to MDing privileges.

The whole question of whether MDing is presumed to be allowed or requires special permission is interesting, but unfortunately there can be no bright line answer. If there are no rules for a city park, then the terms of the license to use the park are ambiguous. A court would say that the license is defined by a reasonableness standard. Would a reasonable person think that metal detecting is allowed? What about skateboarding? A historical society curmudgeon might say that metal detecting is "clearly" against the nature of the park, whereas a helicopter-parent soccer mom might say that skateboarding is "clearly" against the nature of the park. A jury of peers would theoretically have to decide. I think both activities are probably included within "park type activities," but my opinion might not be considered reasonable by those in my subculture. Here lies the unpredictability that has been discussed at length. Ultimately this is a fruitless exercise, though, because the landowner always has a right to revoke the license whenever it wants. Hopefully everyone understands that a landowner can do that, whether it be a private residence or a public park. That's why, for my comfort level, I would like permission so I avoid wasting my time or embarrassment. I recognize that not everyone would be embarrassed by being turned away by a cop in front of a bunch of fellow citizens, but I would. To each his own.

On Easements. In common law states, easements are just permissions. Property ownership is a bundle of sticks. One stick is the right to inhabit the property. Another stick is the right to exclude others. Another stick is the right to mine the minerals. And so on. An easement is a just another stick that has been given away entitling the stickholder to use the property for something particular. I can grant an easement on part my land to my neighbor so he can drive over it to get to his "back 40" without being a trespasser. Before I even bought my property, the prior owner had [been forced to] grant an easement to the utility companies to run utility lines across the first X feet of the property. My front porch is on my property, and most of my driveway is on my property, and then further away (but still on my property) is the boundary of the utility easement, and still further away is my property line. My driveway continues beyond my property line and connects with the road for my own egress/ingress. The sidewalk in front of my house happens to be slightly beyond my property boundary, but my neighborhood covenants (which bound my parcel before I bought it) required that I pay for and construct the sidewalk the full width of my property. The sizes of easements and the convention of whether sidewalks are on private residential property or city property vary by jurisdiction, but the general meaning of those terms is consistent among the U.S. common law states (so not LA).

 

[mjphoto54]

I normally never reply to threads like this, mainly because I'm not well versed on laws or rules pertaining to detecting, access, etc. I've detected as a hobby for 35 years off and on and I go by one rule....I just simply ask who I need to ask if I can detect here or there. Answer has always been either yes or no.
This is a great hobby (or profession for some) and I believe that all of us who do it are respectable people who care. This forum is a great place to share what we all love to do and to help each of us get better at it. I'm glad to be a part of it.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

....find out what code they say you're violating, and review it to see if it actually applies to your situation. If it does, and they regularly enforce it, ....

Well penned post cuda-mark. And I highlight the above part of your post for the following reason: I take it that you mean that some "scrams" could be isolated incidents. And that a single "scram" doesn't necessarily mean a) it's a new law, or b) that this person or others would necessarily ever object again.

It's entirely possible that the person giving the "scram" (a cop or whatever) might have simply been responding to a lookie-lou's complaint. But that ... personally ... could care less. But now that they're called out there, feel the need to satisfy miss lookie-lou , or whatever.

Or perhaps they were just in a bad mood that morning, because they had sour milk on their wheaties, or their wife yelled at them before they left for work ?

Or perhaps its ONLY that singular person who really cares less (because they have a personal beef with detectors, or think it bothers earthworms, or whatever). But no one else in your city of 100,000 cares less.

So as much as I hate to say it: Sometimes a scram means: avoid that one individual in the future. Not "Get that person to love and adore you".

 

[Tom_in_CA]

....a rule prohibiting excavation (local ordinance)....

wmpwi, this has come up before. Rules like that can also use the word "alter", "deface", "molest", "destroy", in addition to excavate, etc.....

But ask yourself what EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THOSE TERMS HAS IN COMMON ? What do they all imply ? The END result. Thus it's a matter Alter versus alterED. Destroy versus destroyED. Deface versus defacED. And yes: Excavate versus excavatED. Hence if you leave no trace of your presence, then technically, you are not violating those clauses (despite the temporary necessary evil).

Oh sure, not every body on earth will agree with those semantics. Fine then: avoid those kill-joys and go at night. Because I can gaurantee you that wording to that net effect is in place on EVERY speck of public land across the entire USA. So if you construe those things to necessarily forbid md'ing, then you're going to have to stick to private property.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

'nuther excellent post cudamark.

.... only one person had an answer, i.e., that the common findings are not archaeologically significant so as to invoke the state antiquities law.....

....Other rules that were made for different circumstances sometimes get morphed into including us when the original intent was for something completely different. Most of the park prohibitions for digging, altering, molesting, etc, were for the protection of the park's floral assets, and predate metal detectors by many years if not decades......

Correct: a lot (all?) of these grey area wordings date back to way before detectors. I mean, duh, since when is "vandalism" ever been allowed? Doh.

And while it's entirely possible that some of them get invoked to shut down an md'r who was/is truly being a nuisance (leaving holes, being obnoxious, etc...), yet a lot of time they get invoked for no other reason that someone's out there seeking clarifications or permission. And then presto: the mental image takes over (geeks with shovels), and then "no" becomes the easy answer (while they reach for the grey area wording to justify the no they just gave your "pressing question")

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... On Permission. I definitely understand the feeling that laws forbid activities or add conditions to something we're already allowed to do. After all, that's our day to day experience with laws, they usually tell us what we can't do or how we can't do it. And because of that, it's totally understandable to think that we members of the public have a right to do what we consider harmless activities at a government park so long as it's not specifically disallowed...

Jamie-find. Good paragraph. You are getting the notion a few of us were putting out there. And the emphasis on "specifically" is mine. It's to distinguish grey (harming earthworms, annoyances, etc...) versus a true and distinct "no metal detecting allowed" law/rule.

.... But suppose I do construct a walking trail on my land and post a sign near the road stating: "WALKING TRAIL / OPEN TO PUBLIC." A court would say that I have now extended a "license" to members of the public permitting them to enter my land and walk on my trail. However, the court would say that strangers would not be allowed to fish in my pond or sleep on my trail. I would not have to post a rule against fishing or sleeping;...

The same things could be said of parks too, eh ? Or a store or shopping center parking lot. Most CERTAINLY the public is welcome there. And you give the example, of if-on-you-land, to "walk" there. Ok, but what if they skipped or shuffled instead of walked ? What if they whistled dixie *while* walking ? And your examples of obvious things you *didn't* intend (fishing and sleeping), have an obvious connotation of intrusion, risk, etc... If we assume that md'ing falls into that same category , then everything you're saying is true. But why do we start with that premise ? I consider md'ing to be equally as innocuous as whistling dixie while walking , etc...

.... if I can just get the city hall receptionist to say that she's sure it's fine as long as I'm not digging up holes and leaving them and carrying a big shovel, at least then I could point to some sorta-kinda "permission" in case of a confrontation in the field....

Ah but the devil is in the details. On the surface, this statement makes perfect sense. A sense of confidence to deflect any potential gripers, right ? And who can argue with "permission" straight from a city hall receptionist afterall, right ? But the devil is in the details:

1) What do you do if that city clerk says "no", and ... you know-full-well that was an arbitrary whimsical "safe" answer, with no basis in actual specific rule ? (other than things she/he *thinks* applies to your "pressing question") ? And worse: you find out that others routinely detect at the location, and have never had an issue or problem ?

2) What do you do, if someone DID gripe, and you proudly whip out your permission or name to drop ? And the griper merely gets on his cell phone, calls to city hall and says : "But Jamie is tearing the place up!", (which isn't true, of course). Guess what happens to your "permission" ? You are scolded for getting that permission under false pretences of failing to mention "holes", "dig", "indian bone" "take/collect" and so forth.

3) perhaps this city clerk , upon trying to tackle your question, realizes there's a glaring gap in the city codes, such that she can admit there's nothing there specifically addressing this. So guess what could be on the item-agenda as a proposed rule at the next city council meeting ? A ban on detecting. THIS HAS ACTUALLY HAPPENED BEFORE. And when you trace it back to the origins of "what put it on their plate as something to consider a ban on", guess where it can sometimes have started from ? A person waltzing in to "get permission". Because, mind you: the mere fact that someone felt they "needed permission" SIMPLY IMPLIES that something is wrong with it (damaging, evil, etc...) , to begin with! (lest why else would you be asking, if it were innocuous?)

..... The whole question of whether MDing is presumed to be allowed or requires special permission is interesting, but unfortunately there can be no bright line answer. If there are no rules for a city park, then the terms of the license to use the park are ambiguous.....

Yes. An interesting subject. A personal bee in my bonnet (if you can't tell, ha!). We've chosen a hobby with admitted connotations (ie.: not every last person is going to roll out red carpets for you). So it's almost as if you have to have a tough skin, and know how not to be an eye-sore wearing neon-orange begging for attention.

...... .Would a reasonable person think that metal detecting is allowed? What about skateboarding? A historical society curmudgeon might say that metal detecting is "clearly" against the nature of the park, whereas a helicopter-parent soccer mom might say that skateboarding is "clearly" against the nature of the park. A jury of peers would theoretically have to decide...

Which is exactly why most of my turf hunting nowadays, is done at night. Or very odd-off times anyhow (crack of dawn, etc....). So peacefull. So serene. But only for turf. The same connotations don't apply for sand (beaches), forests, cow-pasture type settings, etc.... Out of site is out of mind. Some people might call that "sneaking around". Ok , fine then: SNEAK AROUND.

Kind of like nose-picking: Don't you choose ... uh.... discreet times to do that ? So that you don't offend the squeemish ? Rather than trying to get someone's permission to pick your nose ? Same concept for md'ing. Not necessarily illegal, but you STILL but wise times, so that a squeemish person doesn't get their panties in a wad.

 

[cudamark]

" The city owns the land and has the right to do whatever it wants to do with it (with irrelevant exceptions). The city can prohibit everyone from trespassing on the land just like I can do with my own property, and the city can revoke someone's permission to be there at any time and for no reason"



That's why I think asking government officials permission is a waste of time. If they can revoke it at any time, what good is getting it in the first place? The only thing you end up doing is bringing your activity up front and center on their radar. There's no benefit for us by doing that. Keep a low profile, use skilled recovery techniques so nobody can tell you were there, and be friendly when confronted, and you won't get anything more than an occasional "scram".

 

[Captain Caveman]

I don't see anything in your posted law sections that would pertain to detecting curb strips. They're not archaeological sites, historical sites, sunken ship sites, American Indian or aboriginal sites, state landmarks, and in most cases, private property. That doesn't mean that the homeowner might not think it's his, though! If you choose to hunt them, I'd do it at off hours, or at least when the home owner isn't around to complain, if possible. You likely will still get a complainer from time to time. Just smile and move on to greener pastures. Getting into an argument about it won't convince them to change their mind, even if you have it in writing that the law is on your side. There are probably laws like yours in every state and town. As for determining whether the land is government or privately owned, you'll have to look up your local ordinances. Here in my city, it's either 20 or 25 feet each way from the center of the road that is city owned, depending on the section of town. That usually covers the curb, parking strip, and sidewalk, but, bring a tape measure if you have any doubts.

I agree with cudamark. I live in MS and detect at city parks in the greater Jackson area a few times a month. I don't feel like I'm violating any of the laws you posted above as none of the parks are considered archaeological or historical sites as far as I know. I've had LEOs and park employees pass by and check out what I was doing and even speak on occasion, but have yet to be asked to leave or otherwise hassled. With all of this said, I cannot answer your question about other states.