arrest violation in Virginia

1997However, in Penn, we held that "[i]n the absence of any deprivation of constitutional rights, an arrest in violation of state statute does not require exclusion of any evidence obtained as a result of the arrest." 13 Va. App. at 408 , 412 S.E.2d at 194 .

1997However, in Penn, we held that "[i]n the absence of any deprivation of constitutional rights, an arrest in violation of state statute does not require exclusion of any evidence obtained as a result of the arrest." 13 Va. App. at 408 , 412 S.E.2d at 194 .

2005See Penn v. Commonwealth, 13 Va. App. 399 (1991) (holding that although defendant’s arrest violated Virginia statute, the officer had probable cause to believe that he committed an offense, satisfying the constitutional standard and making the evidence obtained admissible); Thompson v. Commonwealth, 10 Va. App. 117, 122 (1990); Atwater v. Lago Vista, 532 U.S. 318, 355 (2001) (holding that, if an officer has probable cause to believe that a suspect has committed even a minor criminal offense in his presence, he may arrest the individual consistently with the Fourth Amendment).

2003Id. at 354 .

2021Costello, Virginia Criminal Law and Procedure § 42.1, at 639-50 (4th ed. 2008); 3 LaFave et al., supra, § 3.3(a), at 117-21. 3 Green’s citation to Dunaway at volume 442 of the U.S. Reports, beginning at page 306, appears to be an inadvertent mistake. 8 (1983) (same), superseded by statute on other grounds, 1985 Acts ch. 507, at 818 (codified as amended at Code § 19.2-81); Durant v. City of Suffolk, 4 Va. App. 445, 448-49 (1987) (same). 4 But that does not mean that a constitutional challenge can never be a ground for declaring an arrest unlawful.

2021See, e.g., Roseborough v. Commonwealth, 281 Va. 233, 238-39 (2011) (excluding the certificate of blood analysis obtained after an arrest in violation of Code § 19.2-81); Thomas v. Town of Marion, 226 Va. 251 , 254 2 See generally John L.

2005Lovelace v. Commonwealth, 27 Va.App. 575, 585 , 500 S.E.2d 267, 272 (1998); see also Rhodes v. Commonwealth, 29 Va.App. 641 , 643 n. 1, 513 S.E.2d 904 , 905 n. 1 (1999) ( en banc ) (noting that our panel decision in " Lovelace is no longer a viable precedent"). [6] Despite the fact that Rhodes was not arrested, we commented in footnote 6 of the opinion that an arrest in violation of Code § 19.2-74 would be unconstitutional and, thus, would require exclusion.

2005Lovelace v. Commonwealth, 27 Va.App. 575, 585 , 500 S.E.2d 267, 272 (1998); see also Rhodes v. Commonwealth, 29 Va.App. 641 , 643 n. 1, 513 S.E.2d 904 , 905 n. 1 (1999) ( en banc ) (noting that our panel decision in " Lovelace is no longer a viable precedent"). [6] Despite the fact that Rhodes was not arrested, we commented in footnote 6 of the opinion that an arrest in violation of Code § 19.2-74 would be unconstitutional and, thus, would require exclusion.

2005Lovelace v. Commonwealth, 27 Va.App. 575, 585 , 500 S.E.2d 267, 272 (1998); see also Rhodes v. Commonwealth, 29 Va.App. 641 , 643 n. 1, 513 S.E.2d 904 , 905 n. 1 (1999) ( en banc ) (noting that our panel decision in " Lovelace is no longer a viable precedent"). [6] Despite the fact that Rhodes was not arrested, we commented in footnote 6 of the opinion that an arrest in violation of Code § 19.2-74 would be unconstitutional and, thus, would require exclusion.

2005Lovelace v. Commonwealth, 27 Va.App. 575, 585 , 500 S.E.2d 267, 272 (1998); see also Rhodes v. Commonwealth, 29 Va.App. 641 , 643 n. 1, 513 S.E.2d 904 , 905 n. 1 (1999) ( en banc ) (noting that our panel decision in " Lovelace is no longer a viable precedent"). [6] Despite the fact that Rhodes was not arrested, we commented in footnote 6 of the opinion that an arrest in violation of Code § 19.2-74 would be unconstitutional and, thus, would require exclusion.

2005See Penn v. Commonwealth, 13 Va. App. 399 (1991) (holding that although defendant’s arrest violated Virginia statute, the officer had probable cause to believe that he committed an offense, satisfying the constitutional standard and making the evidence obtained admissible); Thompson v. Commonwealth, 10 Va. App. 117, 122 (1990); Atwater v. Lago Vista, 532 U.S. 318, 355 (2001) (holding that, if an officer has probable cause to believe that a suspect has committed even a minor criminal offense in his presence, he may arrest the individual consistently with the Fourth Amendment).