## Facts

- In 1997, Ian Martin Lynch found a partially exposed human skull on a rocky hillside on federal land in Alaska, scraped away soil, removed the skull, and took it home.
- The location did not appear to him to be a cemetery or recognized burial site, and there was no evidence he had reason to know it was a burial place or that the skull was ancient.
- Experts initially could not date the skull; later carbon dating determined it was about 1,400 years old.
- The investigation and site restoration costs exceeded $7,000.
- Federal authorities charged Lynch under the Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA), 16 U.S.C. § 470ee(a), for knowingly excavating or removing an archaeological resource from public lands without a permit.
- Lynch contended he did not know the skull qualified as an “archaeological resource” (material remains of past human life or activities, of archaeological interest, and at least 100 years old).

## Issues

1. In a felony prosecution under 16 U.S.C. § 470ee(a), must the government prove the defendant knew (or had reason to know) the object removed was an “archaeological resource” as defined by ARPA, rather than merely proving the defendant knowingly removed the object?

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit vacated Lynch’s conviction and remanded.
- The court held that for a felony violation of § 470ee(a), the government must prove the defendant knew, or at least had reason to know, that the object was an “archaeological resource,” not merely that he knowingly removed a human skull.
- Because the district court accepted a conditional guilty plea based on the view that the government need not prove such knowledge, the conviction could not stand.

## Legal Principles

- In felony prosecutions under ARPA § 470ee(a), “knowingly” reaches the object’s status as an “archaeological resource”; the prosecution must prove the defendant knew or had reason to know the item was of archaeological interest and at least 100 years old.
- ARPA’s mens rea requirement should be construed to avoid treating casual or unwitting conduct as a felony, consistent with Congress’s aim to punish serious destruction of archaeological sites.
- Knowledge that the resource was located on, or removed from, public or Indian land is not an element of the offense; land status functions as a jurisdictional predicate rather than part of the defendant’s required mental state.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit required, for felony liability under ARPA’s excavation/removal provision, proof that the defendant knew or had reason to know the item taken met ARPA’s definition of an archaeological resource, and it vacated and remanded a conviction entered under a contrary mens rea standard.


United States v. Lynch, 233 F.3d 1139 (9th Cir. 2000)