Va. Code » Title 18.2. Crimes and Offenses Generally » Chapter 8. Crimes Involving Morals and Decency » Article 4. Family Offenses; Crimes Against Children, Etc.
Virginia Code

Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-370.2 (2026)

Sex offenses prohibiting proximity to children; penalty

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section VA-LISlaw.lis.virginia.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A. "Offense prohibiting proximity to children" means a violation or an attempt to commit a violation of (i) subsection A of § 18.2-47, clause (ii) or (iii) of § 18.2-48, subsection B of § 18.2-361, or subsection B of § 18.2-366, where the victim of one of the foregoing offenses was a minor, or (ii) clause (iii) of subsection A of § 18.2-61, § 18.2-63 or 18.2-64.1, subdivision A 1 of § 18.2-67.1, subdivision A 1 of § 18.2-67.2, subdivision A 1 or A 4 (a) of § 18.2-67.3, § 18.2-370 or 18.2-370.1, clause (ii) of § 18.2-371, or § 18.2-374.1, 18.2-374.1:1 or 18.2-379. As of July 1, 2006, "offense prohibiting proximity to children" includes a violation of § 18.2-472.1 when the offense requiring registration was one of the foregoing offenses.

B. Every adult who is convicted of an offense prohibiting proximity to children when the offense occurred on or after July 1, 2000, shall as part of his sentence be forever prohibited from loitering within 100 feet of the premises of any place he knows or has reason to know is a primary, secondary or high school. In addition, every adult who is convicted of an offense prohibiting proximity to children when the offense occurred on or after July 1, 2006, shall as part of his sentence be forever prohibited from loitering within 100 feet of the premises of any place he knows or has reason to know is a child day program as defined in § 22.1-289.02.

C. Every adult who is convicted of an offense prohibiting proximity to children, when the offense occurred on or after July 1, 2008, shall as part of his sentence be forever prohibited from going, for the purpose of having any contact whatsoever with children who are not in his custody, within 100 feet of the premises of any place owned or operated by a locality or, for any offense that occurred on or after July 1, 2026, a state park that he knows or should know is a playground, athletic field or facility, or gymnasium.

D. Every adult who is convicted of an offense prohibiting proximity to children, when the offense occurred on or after July 1, 2026, shall as part of his sentence be forever prohibited from going, for the purpose of having any contact whatsoever with children who are not in his custody, within 100 feet of the premises of any place owned or operated by an authority created pursuant to the Park Authorities Act (§ 15.2-5700 et seq.) that he knows or should know is a playground, athletic field or facility, or gymnasium.

E. Any person convicted of an offense under the laws of any foreign country or any political subdivision thereof, or the United States or any political subdivision thereof, similar to any offense set forth in subsection A shall be forever prohibited from loitering within 100 feet of the premises of any place he knows or has reason to know is a primary, secondary, or high school or any place he knows or has reason to know is a child day program as defined in § 22.1-289.02. In addition, he shall be forever prohibited from going, for the purpose of having any contact whatsoever with children who are not in his custody, within 100 feet of the premises of any place owned or operated by either (i) a locality or (ii) an authority created pursuant to the Park Authorities Act (§ 15.2-5700 et seq.), that he knows or has reason to know is a playground, athletic field or facility, or gymnasium. He shall also be forever prohibited from going, for the purpose of having any contact whatsoever with children who are not in his custody, within 100 feet of a playground, athletic field or facility, or gymnasium he knows or has reason to know is located on the premises of a state park.

F. A violation of this section is punishable as a Class 6 felony.

2000, c. 770; 2006, cc. 857, 914; 2008, c. 579; 2017, c. 507; 2020, cc. 860, 861; 2026, cc. 96, 480.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 2004–2024 · leading case: John Doe v. Gary Settle, 24 F.4th 932 (4th Cir. 2022).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
John Doe v. Gary Settle, 24 F.4th 932 (4th Cir. 2022). · cites it 2× “Va. Code § 18.2-370.2. That restriction is an order of magnitude less severe than the limitation in Snyder, which also involved significant allegations about hardship that this case does not.”
John Doe v. Gary Settle (4th Cir. 2022). · cites it 2× “Va. Code § 18.2-370.2. That restriction is an order of magnitude less severe than the limitation in Snyder, which also involved significant allegations about hardship that this case does not.”
John Wallace Blanchard v. Commonwealth of Virginia (Va. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 2× “2 The indictment included the specific statute under which he was charged, the initials of the alleged victim, her age at the time of the offense, and the assertion that Blanchard “did unlawfully and feloniously knowingly and intentionally with lascivious intent, commit a…”
Hester Prynne v. Gary Settle (4th Cir. 2021). “, Va. Code Ann. §§ 18.2-370.2 to 18.2-370.3 (prohibiting certain registrants from residing within 500 feet or loitering within 100 feet of schools and parks).”
Nc Rsol v. Nodalski (M.D.N.C. 2019). “149; Va. Code § 18.2-370.2. and . . . provide opportunities to meet and interact with elected representatives and candidates for political office.”
Nat'l Assoc. For Rational Sexual Offense Laws v. Joshua Stein (4th Cir. 2024). “18 (a), Virginia only prohibits being within 100 feet of such places “for the purpose of having contact” with children or otherwise “loitering” there, Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-370.2 . Given these differences, Settle doesn’t bind our analysis of this factor.”
Nat'l Assoc. For Rational Sexual Offense Laws v. Joshua Stein (4th Cir. 2024). “18 (a), Virginia only prohibits being within 100 feet of such places “for the purpose of having contact” with children or otherwise “loitering” there, Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-370.2 . Given these differences, Settle doesn’t bind our analysis of this factor.”
Pernell Lee Viney v. Commonwealth of Virginia (Va. Ct. App. 2004). “2d 282 (1970), is the pivotal case defining “lascivious intent” as the term is used in Code § 18.2-370.2 In that case, the Supreme Court explained: The word “lascivious” is not defined in the statute, and must therefore be given its ordinary meaning in determining the…”
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.