The blood sample withdrawn pursuant to § 18.2-268.5 shall be placed in vials provided or approved by the Department of Forensic Science. The vials shall be sealed by the person taking the sample or at his direction. The person who seals the vials shall complete the prenumbered certificate of blood withdrawal forms and attach one form to each vial. The completed withdrawal certificate for each vial shall show the name of the accused, the name of the person taking the blood sample, the date and time the blood sample was taken and information identifying the arresting or accompanying officer. The vials shall be placed in a container provided by the Department, and the container shall be sealed to prevent tampering with the vials. The arresting or accompanying officer shall take possession of the container as soon as the vials are placed in the container and sealed, and shall promptly transport or mail the container to the Department.
1992, c. 830; 2001, c. 561; 2003, cc. 933, 936; 2005, cc. 868, 881.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
21
cases (
5 in the last 5 years), 1992–2024 · leading case:
Stevens v. Commonwealth, 616 S.E.2d 754 (Va. Ct. App. 2005).
Stevens v. Commonwealth, 616 S.E.2d 754 (Va. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 40× “[6] Neither Code § 18.2-268.6 nor any of the other implied consent law statutes refer to Code § 18.”
Stevens v. Commonwealth, 603 S.E.2d 642 (Va. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 48× “1 on the ground that the Commonwealth did not comply with the procedural requirements of Code § 18.2-268.6, a provision concerning the transmission of blood samples.”
Cutright v. Commonwealth, 601 S.E.2d 1 (Va. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 10× “*597 At the time of Cutright’s arrest, Code § 18.2-268.6 provided that the arresting officer “shall give to the accused a form provided by the Division which sets forth the procedure to obtain an independent analysis of the blood in the second container, and a list of the names…”
Thurston v. City of Lynchburg, 424 S.E.2d 701 (Va. Ct. App. 1992).
· cites it 8× “Pertinent to the present appeal, Code § 18.2-268.6 provides that “[ajdequate portions of the blood samples” shall be withdrawn in accordance with Code § 18.”
Shoemaker v. Commonwealth, 441 S.E.2d 354 (Va. Ct. App. 1994).
· cites it 8× “Because we find that the Commonwealth failed to substantially comply with the requirements of Code § 18.2-268.6, we reverse the conviction and dismiss the prosecution.”
Artis v. City of Suffolk, 450 S.E.2d 165 (Va. Ct. App. 1994).
· cites it 8× “Willie Lee Artis appeals his conviction for driving while intoxicated on the ground that the arresting officer failed to comply with the requirement of Code § 18.2-268.6 that following the taking of a blood sample an accused be given an independent analysis designation form and…”
Stevens v. Com., 634 S.E.2d 305 (Va. 2006).
· cites it 2× “See former Code § 18.2-268.6 (1996 & Supp.2002). Again, we conclude that any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, and we so hold.”
Arnold Ex Rel. Hill v. Hartford Life Ins., 542 F. Supp. 2d 471 (W.D. Va. 2008).
· cites it 4× “Nevertheless, the plaintiff contends that there is no certificate of blood withdrawal pursuant to Va.Code Ann. § 18.2-268.6, which requires the completion of such a certificate by the person taking the blood sample for purposes of conviction for the offense of driving while…”
Ricky Mason Durrette v. Cnty. of Spotsylvania, 468 S.E.2d 128 (Va. Ct. App. 1996).
“7 states: Upon receipt of a blood sample forwarded to the Division for analysis pursuant to § 18.2-268.6, the Division shall have it examined for its alcohol or drug or both alcohol and drug content and the Director shall execute a certificate of analysis indicating the name of…”
Walter Craig Jones v. Commonwealth (Va. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 13× “” The court agreed that the outside container was “a little plastic 1 The version of Code § 18.2-268.6 in effect at the time of Jones’ arrest read in pertinent part: Adequate portions of the blood samples withdrawn pursuant to § 18.”
Robert Elvin Ingram v. Commonwealth (Va. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 11× “The sole issue on appeal is whether the officer violated Code § 18.2-268.6 when he did not allow Ingram to keep the form, which explained the procedure for an independent analysis of his blood after Ingram had read and signed the form.”
Nolan Marcus Forness, II v. Commonwealth of Virginia (Va. Ct. App. 2022).
· cites it 6× “- 10 - required by Code § 18.2-268.6, was admitted without authentication or testimony about who wrote it, and the Commonwealth did not establish a clear chain of custody for the tested blood.”
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.