Va. Code » Title 18.2. Crimes and Offenses Generally » Chapter 7. Crimes Involving Health and Safety » Article 1. Drugs
Virginia Code

Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-249 (2026)

Repealed

✓ laws through the 2026 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section VA-LISlaw.lis.virginia.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Repealed by Acts 2004, c. 995.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1977–2025 · leading case: Lee v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 482 S.E.2d 802 (Va. 1997).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Lee v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 482 S.E.2d 802 (Va. 1997). · cites it 19× “Shelton, Judge In this appeal of a civil action for forfeiture initiated pursuant to Code § 18.2-249, we consider whether there is a "substantial connection" between the forfeited items and illegal drug activity.”
Virginia v. Brunson, 448 S.E.2d 393 (Va. 1994). · cites it 15× “The trial courts sustained the motions, holding that they had no subject matter jurisdiction because the Commonwealth failed to file the informations within 90 days after the property was seized as required by Code § 19.2-386.3(A). We granted the Commonwealth an appeal in each…”
Jenkins v. Commonwealth, 411 S.E.2d 841 (Va. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 12× “” It is uncontroverted that the police initially seized defendant’s money pursuant to the provisions of Code § 18.2-249. Property subject to “lawful seizure” under this statute expressly includes “money .”
Haina v. Commonwealth, 369 S.E.2d 401 (Va. 1988). · cites it 8× “This is an appeal from an order forfeiting a motor vehicle to the Commonwealth pursuant to Code § 18.2-249. It raises questions concerning the sufficiency of the evidence and the effect of the Commonwealth’s failure to file an information within 60 days of notice of seizure, as…”
Commonwealth v. Wilks, 530 S.E.2d 665 (Va. 2000). · cites it 4× “1 Code § 18.2-249 describes the types of property subject to seizure in a forfeiture proceeding involving real or personal property related to illegal drug transactions.”
Patty v. Commonwealth, 235 S.E.2d 437 (Va. 1977). · cites it 2× “The judgment of conviction will, accordingly, be Affirmed. * Because of what we have just said, it is unnecessary for us to consider an alternative theory advocated by the Attorney General to sustain the warrantless search.”
United States v. Brookins, 228 F. Supp. 2d 732 (E.D. Va. 2002). “In particular, federal law provides that vehicles used "to transport, or in any manner facilitate the transportation, sale, receipt, possession or concealment" of all controlled substances, are subject to forfeiture.”
United States v. Brookins, 228 F. Supp. 2d 732 (E.D. Va. 2002). · cites it 2× “In particular, federal law provides that vehicles used “to transport, or in any manner facilitate the transportation, sale, receipt, possession or concealment” of all controlled substances, are subject to forfeiture.”
Commonwealth v. $889.58, 34 Va. Cir. 531 (Amherst Cir. Ct. 1993). · cites it 6× “The Commonwealth’s Attorney maintains that the asset seizure pursuant to § 18.2-249 and § 19.2-386.1 et seq. is a separate proceeding from the seizure for purposes of evidence in the criminal case.”
Doe v. Green, 922 S.E.2d 756 (Va. 2025). · cites it 2× “Code § 18.2-249(6). 3 did not establish that she met the definition of a “complaining witness,” a necessary requirement for a finding of sexual abuse, or that their sexual relationship amounted to “sexual abuse” as defined by Code § 18.”
Commonwealth v. Turner, 58 Va. Cir. 576 (Va. Cir. Ct. 2000). · cites it 4× “The Commonwealth notes that this is a case of the latter, “fruits,” while 1958 Plymouth was a case addressing the forfeiture of the former, “instrumentalities.”
James H. Stallings, Jr. v. Commonwealth, No. 1692034 (Va. Ct. App. July 13, 2004). · cites it 2× “On November 12, 2001, appellant was charged with making annoying phone calls in violation of Code § 18.2-249. He was convicted by the general district court, and appealed that conviction to the circuit court.”
Show all 17 citing cases →
Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-249(6): 1 case
Doe v. Green, 922 S.E.2d 756 (Va. 2025). “Code § 18.2-249(6). 3 did not establish that she met the definition of a “complaining witness,” a necessary requirement for a finding of sexual abuse, or that their sexual relationship amounted to “sexual abuse” as defined by Code § 18.”
Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-249(A)(i): 2 cases
Jenkins v. Commonwealth, 411 S.E.2d 841 (Va. Ct. App. 1991). “” It is uncontroverted that the police initially seized defendant’s money pursuant to the provisions of Code § 18.2-249. Property subject to “lawful seizure” under this statute expressly includes “money .”
Commonwealth v. Turner, 58 Va. Cir. 576 (Va. Cir. Ct. 2000). “The Commonwealth notes that this is a case of the latter, “fruits,” while 1958 Plymouth was a case addressing the forfeiture of the former, “instrumentalities.”
Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-249(A)(ii): 1 case
Commonwealth v. Turner, 58 Va. Cir. 576 (Va. Cir. Ct. 2000). “The Commonwealth notes that this is a case of the latter, “fruits,” while 1958 Plymouth was a case addressing the forfeiture of the former, “instrumentalities.”
Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-249(B): 2 cases
Jenkins v. Commonwealth, 411 S.E.2d 841 (Va. Ct. App. 1991). “” It is uncontroverted that the police initially seized defendant’s money pursuant to the provisions of Code § 18.2-249. Property subject to “lawful seizure” under this statute expressly includes “money .”
Commonwealth v. Turner, 58 Va. Cir. 576 (Va. Cir. Ct. 2000). “The Commonwealth notes that this is a case of the latter, “fruits,” while 1958 Plymouth was a case addressing the forfeiture of the former, “instrumentalities.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.