Virginia Code

Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-268 (2026)

Repealed

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section VA-LISlaw.lis.virginia.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Repealed by Acts 1992, c. 830.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 114 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1976–2024 · leading case: Davis v. Commonwealth, 381 S.E.2d 11 (Va. Ct. App. 1989).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Davis v. Commonwealth, 381 S.E.2d 11 (Va. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 42× “10 percent or more by weight by volume as indicated by a chemical test administered in accordance with the provisions of *12 Code § 18.2-268. On appeal, Davis phrases the issues to be addressed in the following manner: (1) whether, in accordance with the language of Code § 18.”

Wendel v. Commonwealth, 407 S.E.2d 690 (Va. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 68× “At some point before trial, Wendel requested the Commonwealth’s result of his blood analysis pursuant to Code § 18.2-268 (M), which provides: Upon the request of the person whose blood or breath or both blood and breath sample was taken for chemical tests to determine the…”

Commonwealth v. Rafferty, 402 S.E.2d 17 (Va. 1991). · cites it 25× “Furthermore, in construing the ancestor of Code § 18.2-268 (V), we held that because the procedure for trial and appeal of unreasonable refusal cases was to be the same as in misdemeanor appeals, this was sufficient to give the defendant a right to a jury trial on appeal to the…”

Essex v. Commonwealth, 322 S.E.2d 216 (Va. 1984). · cites it 14× “Code § 18.2-268 provides that a certificate attesting to the results of a blood-alcohol analysis, performed in substantial compliance with the procedural steps detailed in the statute, is self-authenticating as evidence of the misdemeanor defined in § 18.”

Kemp v. Commonwealth, 429 S.E.2d 875 (Va. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 42× “2-268(Z) states that substantial compliance with the procedural steps in Code § 18.2-268, “ ‘relating to the taking, handling, identification, and disposition’ of blood and breath samples,” is sufficient.”

Farmer v. Commonwealth, 404 S.E.2d 371 (Va. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 16× “In the event of a refusal, Code § 18.2-268 (T) provides the specific period of suspension of the accused’s driver’s license upon a determination that the refusal was unreasonable.”

Stevens v. Commonwealth, 616 S.E.2d 754 (Va. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 8× “As we noted in Shoemaker , the Supreme Court has explained the necessity of "diligent adherence" to the implied consent law as follows: "The provisions of [Code § 18.2-268 et seq. ] serve a salutary purpose.”

Wohlford v. Commonwealth, 351 S.E.2d 47 (Va. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 22× “Wohlford argues that the use of the word “shall” throughout this statute renders it a mandatory statute, thus making the arrest illegal and the subsequent breath test results obtained pursuant to Code § 18.2-268 inadmissible at trial. We disagree.”

Breeden v. Commonwealth, 421 S.E.2d 674 (Va. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 12× “Once the Commonwealth has elected to have a driver take a blood or breath test pursuant to Code § 18.2-268, the driver has a right to receive the benefits of the test.”

Brooks v. City of Newport News, 295 S.E.2d 801 (Va. 1982). · cites it 10× “2-266 of the Code or of a similar ordinance of any county, city or town, this section shall not otherwise limit the introduction of any relevant evidence bearing upon any question at issue before the court, and the court shall, regardless of the result of the blood or breath…”

Oliver v. Commonwealth, 577 S.E.2d 514 (Va. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 8× “Breeden held, "[o]nce the Commonwealth has elected to have a driver take a blood or breath test pursuant to Code § 18.2-268, the driver has a right to receive the benefits of the test.”

Castillo v. Commonwealth, 465 S.E.2d 146 (Va. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 11× “Appellant objected to the admission of the breathalyzer test results, asserting that the police did not arrest her for driving under the influence within two hours of the offense, as required by Code § 18.2-268. Appellant also argued she never voluntarily chose to undergo a…”

Show all 114 citing cases →

— Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-268(0) — 7 cases

Spencer v. Commonwealth, 393 S.E.2d 609 (Va. 1990).

Farmer v. Commonwealth, 404 S.E.2d 371 (Va. Ct. App. 1991). “In the event of a refusal, Code § 18.2-268 (T) provides the specific period of suspension of the accused’s driver’s license upon a determination that the refusal was unreasonable.”

Wendel v. Commonwealth, 407 S.E.2d 690 (Va. Ct. App. 1991). “At some point before trial, Wendel requested the Commonwealth’s result of his blood analysis pursuant to Code § 18.2-268 (M), which provides: Upon the request of the person whose blood or breath or both blood and breath sample was taken for chemical tests to determine the…”

Farmer v. Commonwealth, 390 S.E.2d 775 (Va. Ct. App. 1990).

Whitson v. Middleton (In Re Middleton), 100 B.R. 814 (Bankr. E.D. Va. 1988).

— Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-268(B) — 21 cases

Davis v. Commonwealth, 381 S.E.2d 11 (Va. Ct. App. 1989). “10 percent or more by weight by volume as indicated by a chemical test administered in accordance with the provisions of *12 Code § 18.2-268. On appeal, Davis phrases the issues to be addressed in the following manner: (1) whether, in accordance with the language of Code § 18.”

Breeden v. Commonwealth, 421 S.E.2d 674 (Va. Ct. App. 1992). “Once the Commonwealth has elected to have a driver take a blood or breath test pursuant to Code § 18.2-268, the driver has a right to receive the benefits of the test.”

Bennett v. Commonwealth, 533 S.E.2d 22 (Va. Ct. App. 2000).

Quinn v. Commonwealth, 388 S.E.2d 268 (Va. Ct. App. 1990).

— Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-268(C) — 10 cases

Mason v. Commonwealth, 425 S.E.2d 544 (Va. Ct. App. 1993).

Sullivan v. Commonwealth, 437 S.E.2d 242 (Va. Ct. App. 1993).

Lamay v. Commonwealth, 513 S.E.2d 411 (Va. Ct. App. 1999).

Talley v. Commonwealth, 431 S.E.2d 65 (Va. Ct. App. 1993).

— Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-268(D) — 1 case

Kemp v. Commonwealth, 429 S.E.2d 875 (Va. Ct. App. 1993). “2-268(Z) states that substantial compliance with the procedural steps in Code § 18.2-268, “ ‘relating to the taking, handling, identification, and disposition’ of blood and breath samples,” is sufficient.”

— Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-268(D)(iv) — 1 case

Trevor Alan Neeper v. Commonwealth of Virginia (Va. Ct. App. 2022).

— Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-268(E) — 4 cases

Farmer v. Commonwealth, 390 S.E.2d 775 (Va. Ct. App. 1990).

Farmer v. Com., 390 S.E.2d 775 (Va. Ct. App. 1990).

Robertie v. City of Fairfax, 392 S.E.2d 503 (Va. Ct. App. 1990).

— Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-268(F) — 4 cases

Commonwealth v. Metcalf, 24 Va. Cir. 347 (Lancaster Cir. Ct. 1991).

Commonwealth v. Bradburn, 19 Va. Cir. 103 (Fairfax Cir. Ct. 1990).

— Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-268(G) — 5 cases

Shoemaker v. Commonwealth, 441 S.E.2d 354 (Va. Ct. App. 1994).

Williams v. Commonwealth, 394 S.E.2d 728 (Va. Ct. App. 1990).

Commonwealth v. Gray, 25 Va. Cir. 177 (Lancaster Cir. Ct. 1991).

— Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-268(H) — 3 cases

Commonwealth v. Metcalf, 24 Va. Cir. 347 (Lancaster Cir. Ct. 1991).

— Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-268(K) — 2 cases

Commonwealth v. Sandhu, 28 Va. Cir. 88 (Fairfax Cir. Ct. 1992).

— Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-268(L) — 1 case

Basfield v. Commonwealth, 398 S.E.2d 80 (Va. Ct. App. 1990).

— Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-268(M) — 4 cases

Commonwealth v. Metcalf, 24 Va. Cir. 347 (Lancaster Cir. Ct. 1991).

Commonwealth v. Gray, 25 Va. Cir. 177 (Lancaster Cir. Ct. 1991).

— Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-268(O) — 4 cases

Farmer v. Com., 390 S.E.2d 775 (Va. Ct. App. 1990).

William Richard Hasson, III v. Commonwealth (Va. Ct. App. 2006).

Aaron Danyle Beale v. Commonwealth of Virginia (Va. Ct. App. 2004).

— Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-268(P) — 1 case

Commonwealth v. Rafferty, 402 S.E.2d 17 (Va. 1991). “Furthermore, in construing the ancestor of Code § 18.2-268 (V), we held that because the procedure for trial and appeal of unreasonable refusal cases was to be the same as in misdemeanor appeals, this was sufficient to give the defendant a right to a jury trial on appeal to the…”

— Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-268(Q) — 7 cases

Jamborsky v. Baskins, 442 S.E.2d 636 (Va. 1994).

Commonwealth v. Wilks, 530 S.E.2d 665 (Va. 2000).

Tran v. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 536 S.E.2d 913 (Va. 2000).

Harris v. Commonwealth, 667 S.E.2d 809 (Va. Ct. App. 2008).

— Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-268(S) — 2 cases

Quinn v. Commonwealth, 388 S.E.2d 268 (Va. Ct. App. 1990).

Robertie v. City of Fairfax, 392 S.E.2d 503 (Va. Ct. App. 1990).

— Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-268(T) — 5 cases

Farmer v. Commonwealth, 390 S.E.2d 775 (Va. Ct. App. 1990).

Commonwealth v. Hastings, 25 Va. Cir. 339 (Fairfax Cir. Ct. 1991).

Farmer v. Com., 390 S.E.2d 775 (Va. Ct. App. 1990).

Commonwealth v. Antrim, 20 Va. Cir. 426 (Loudoun Cir. Ct. 1990).

— Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-268(V) — 2 cases

Frouz v. Commonwealth, 821 S.E.2d 324 (Va. 2018).

— Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-268(X) — 2 cases

Quinn v. Commonwealth, 388 S.E.2d 268 (Va. Ct. App. 1990).

Whitson v. Middleton (In Re Middleton), 100 B.R. 814 (Bankr. E.D. Va. 1988).

— Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-268(Y) — 1 case

James v. Commonwealth, 446 S.E.2d 900 (Va. Ct. App. 1994).

— Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-268(Z) — 6 cases

Cutright v. Commonwealth, 601 S.E.2d 1 (Va. Ct. App. 2004).

Williams v. Commonwealth, 394 S.E.2d 728 (Va. Ct. App. 1990).

Commonwealth v. Gray, 25 Va. Cir. 177 (Lancaster Cir. Ct. 1991).

— Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-268(b) — 7 cases

Tipton v. Commonwealth, 444 S.E.2d 1 (Va. Ct. App. 1994).

Overbee v. Commonwealth, 315 S.E.2d 242 (Va. 1984).

Thomas v. Town of Marion, 308 S.E.2d 120 (Va. 1983).

Driver v. Commonwealth, 371 S.E.2d 27 (Va. Ct. App. 1988).

Commonwealth v. Tipton, 28 Va. Cir. 152 (Albemarle Cir. Ct. 1992).

— Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-268(c) — 4 cases

Simon v. Commonwealth, 258 S.E.2d 567 (Va. 1979).

Oliver v. Commonwealth, 577 S.E.2d 514 (Va. Ct. App. 2003). “Breeden held, "[o]nce the Commonwealth has elected to have a driver take a blood or breath test pursuant to Code § 18.2-268, the driver has a right to receive the benefits of the test.”

Logan v. Shealy, 500 F. Supp. 502 (E.D. Va. 1980).

Commonwealth v. Bly, 7 Va. Cir. 345 (Frederick Cir. Ct. 1986).

— Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-268(i) — 4 cases

Essex v. Commonwealth, 322 S.E.2d 216 (Va. 1984). “Code § 18.2-268 provides that a certificate attesting to the results of a blood-alcohol analysis, performed in substantial compliance with the procedural steps detailed in the statute, is self-authenticating as evidence of the misdemeanor defined in § 18.”

Brooks v. City of Newport News, 295 S.E.2d 801 (Va. 1982). “2-266 of the Code or of a similar ordinance of any county, city or town, this section shall not otherwise limit the introduction of any relevant evidence bearing upon any question at issue before the court, and the court shall, regardless of the result of the blood or breath…”

Grant v. Commonwealth, 682 S.E.2d 84 (Va. Ct. App. 2009).

Wohlford v. Commonwealth, 351 S.E.2d 47 (Va. Ct. App. 1986). “Wohlford argues that the use of the word “shall” throughout this statute renders it a mandatory statute, thus making the arrest illegal and the subsequent breath test results obtained pursuant to Code § 18.2-268 inadmissible at trial. We disagree.”

— Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-268(j) — 1 case

Commonwealth v. Bly, 7 Va. Cir. 345 (Frederick Cir. Ct. 1986).

— Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-268(p) — 2 cases

Cash v. Commonwealth, 364 S.E.2d 769 (Va. Ct. App. 1988).

— Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-268(r) — 1 case

Quinn v. Commonwealth, 388 S.E.2d 268 (Va. Ct. App. 1990).

— Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-268(r1) — 1 case

Calvin L. Woodridge v. Commonwealth of Virginia (Va. Ct. App. 1999).

— Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-268(rl) — 3 cases

Woolridge v. Commonwealth, 512 S.E.2d 153 (Va. Ct. App. 1999).

Commonwealth v. Davis, 5 Va. Cir. 213 (Campbell Cir. Ct. 1984).

— Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-268(s) — 3 cases

United States v. Robertson, 638 F. Supp. 1202 (E.D. Va. 1986).

Commonwealth v. Davis, 5 Va. Cir. 213 (Campbell Cir. Ct. 1984).

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.