A. It is unlawful for any person to knowingly and intentionally create any videographic or still image by any means whatsoever of any nonconsenting person if (i) that person is (a) totally nude; (b) clad in undergarments; (c) in a state of undress so as to expose the genitals, pubic area, buttocks, or female breast; or (d) not exposed to show the genitals, pubic area, buttocks, or female breast but such videographic or still image is obscene, as defined in § 18.2-372, when such nonconsenting person is in a restroom, dressing room, locker room, hotel room, motel room, tanning bed, tanning booth, bedroom, or other location; or (ii) the videographic or still image is created by placing the lens or image-gathering component of the recording device in a position directly beneath or between a person's legs for the purpose of capturing an image of the person's intimate parts or undergarments covering those intimate parts when the intimate parts or undergarments would not otherwise be visible to the general public; and when the circumstances set forth in clause (i) or (ii) are otherwise such that the person being recorded would have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
B. The provisions of this section shall not apply to any videographic or still image created by any means whatsoever by (i) law-enforcement officers pursuant to a criminal investigation which is otherwise lawful or (ii) correctional officials and local or regional jail officials for security purposes or for investigations of alleged misconduct involving a person committed to the Department of Corrections or to a local or regional jail, or to any sound recording of an oral conversation made as a result of any videotaping or filming pursuant to Chapter 6 (§ 19.2-61 et seq.) of Title 19.2.
C. A violation of subsection A is a Class 1 misdemeanor.
D. A violation of subsection A involving a nonconsenting person younger than 18 years of age is a Class 6 felony.
E. Where it is alleged in the warrant, information, or indictment on which the person is convicted and found by the court or jury trying the case that the person has previously been convicted within the 10-year period immediately preceding the offense charged of two or more of the offenses specified in this section, each such offense occurring on a different date, and when such offenses were not part of a common act, transaction, or scheme, and such person has been at liberty as defined in § 53.1-151 between each conviction, he is guilty of a Class 6 felony.
1994, c. 640; 2004, c. 844; 2005, c. 375; 2008, c. 732; 2014, c. 399; 2026, c. 539.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
18
cases (
11 in the last 5 years), 1998–2024 · leading case:
Wilson v. Commonwealth, 673 S.E.2d 923 (Va. Ct. App. 2009).
Wilson v. Commonwealth, 673 S.E.2d 923 (Va. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 30× “On appeal, Wilson argues the trial court erred in its interpretation of Code § 18.2-386.1 by holding that a crime under the statute could occur in a public place.”
Arthur Amil Zebbs v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 785 S.E.2d 493 (Va. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 2× “Pursuant to a plea agreement, the circuit court sentenced Zebbs to twenty-five years in prison with thirteen years suspended for the sodomy charge, and to a combined twenty-four months of incarceration, all suspended, for the misdemeanors.”
Gochenour v. Beasley, 47 Va. Cir. 218 (Rockingham Cir. Ct. 1998).
· cites it 4× “01-40 of the Code of Virginia (unauthorized use of photograph in trade); and (4) § 18.2-386.1 (unlawful filming, videotaping, photographing of another’s private parts).”
Marshall v. Commonwealth, 708 S.E.2d 253 (Va. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 2× “4 (prohibiting individual unlawfully in possession of controlled substance from “simultaneously with knowledge and intent” possessing firearms); Code § 18.”
Moussa Moise Haba v. Commonwealth of Virginia (Va. Ct. App. 2021).
· cites it 29× “Moussa Moise Haba appeals his conviction for the unlawful creation of an image of another in violation of Code § 18.2-386.1. He contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction because the Commonwealth did not prove that the victim had a reasonable…”
Ronnie Lee Johnson v. Commonwealth of Virginia (Va. Ct. App. 2021).
· cites it 26× “Following a bench trial, the circuit court found appellant Ronnie Lee Johnson guilty of unlawful filming under Code § 18.2-386.1. He received a sentence of twelve months in jail, with six months suspended.”
Keith Wayne Rivers v. Commonwealth of Virginia (Va. Ct. App. 2023).
· cites it 11× “A jury found Rivers guilty of attempted unlawful creation of an image of a nonconsenting minor in violation of Code § 18.2-386.1. See also Code § 18.2-26.”
Charles L. C'Debaca, s/k/a v. Commonwealth (Va. Ct. App. 1999).
· cites it 16× “On appeal, he contends that the trial court erred by (1) admitting evidence of a videotape that was seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment; (2) refusing to allow appellant to have an expert witness examine the videotape seized by the police; and (3) finding that Code §…”
Commonwealth v. Schneider, 78 Va. Cir. 320 (Hanover Cir. Ct. 2009).
· cites it 8× “Overton Harris On January 10, 2005, Defendant received nine separate convictions for unlawful filming, videotaping, or photographing of another in violation of the Code of Virginia § 18.2-386.1. As a result of his convictions, Defendant has been compelled to register as a sex…”
Robinson v. United States (D.C. 2021).
· cites it 2× “3d at 151–52 (contrasting Washington state’s statute “which named the place where this privacy is expected” with California’s statute which referred to “circumstances in which the other person has a reasonable expectation of privacy,” 7 See Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-386.1 (West 1994)…”
— Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-386.1(A) — 7 cases
Wilson v. Commonwealth, 673 S.E.2d 923 (Va. Ct. App. 2009).
“On appeal, Wilson argues the trial court erred in its interpretation of Code § 18.2-386.1 by holding that a crime under the statute could occur in a public place.”
Arthur Amil Zebbs v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 785 S.E.2d 493 (Va. Ct. App. 2016).
“Pursuant to a plea agreement, the circuit court sentenced Zebbs to twenty-five years in prison with thirteen years suspended for the sodomy charge, and to a combined twenty-four months of incarceration, all suspended, for the misdemeanors.”
Ronnie Lee Johnson v. Commonwealth of Virginia (Va. Ct. App. 2021).
“Following a bench trial, the circuit court found appellant Ronnie Lee Johnson guilty of unlawful filming under Code § 18.2-386.1. He received a sentence of twelve months in jail, with six months suspended.”
— Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-386.1(A)(i) — 5 cases
Wilson v. Commonwealth, 673 S.E.2d 923 (Va. Ct. App. 2009).
“On appeal, Wilson argues the trial court erred in its interpretation of Code § 18.2-386.1 by holding that a crime under the statute could occur in a public place.”
Moussa Moise Haba v. Commonwealth of Virginia (Va. Ct. App. 2021).
“Moussa Moise Haba appeals his conviction for the unlawful creation of an image of another in violation of Code § 18.2-386.1. He contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction because the Commonwealth did not prove that the victim had a reasonable…”
Ronnie Lee Johnson v. Commonwealth of Virginia (Va. Ct. App. 2021).
“Following a bench trial, the circuit court found appellant Ronnie Lee Johnson guilty of unlawful filming under Code § 18.2-386.1. He received a sentence of twelve months in jail, with six months suspended.”
Charles L. C'Debaca, s/k/a v. Commonwealth (Va. Ct. App. 1999).
“On appeal, he contends that the trial court erred by (1) admitting evidence of a videotape that was seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment; (2) refusing to allow appellant to have an expert witness examine the videotape seized by the police; and (3) finding that Code §…”
— Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-386.1(A)(ii) — 2 cases
Wilson v. Commonwealth, 673 S.E.2d 923 (Va. Ct. App. 2009).
“On appeal, Wilson argues the trial court erred in its interpretation of Code § 18.2-386.1 by holding that a crime under the statute could occur in a public place.”
Moussa Moise Haba v. Commonwealth of Virginia (Va. Ct. App. 2021).
“Moussa Moise Haba appeals his conviction for the unlawful creation of an image of another in violation of Code § 18.2-386.1. He contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction because the Commonwealth did not prove that the victim had a reasonable…”
— Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-386.1(B) — 1 case
Moussa Moise Haba v. Commonwealth of Virginia (Va. Ct. App. 2021).
“Moussa Moise Haba appeals his conviction for the unlawful creation of an image of another in violation of Code § 18.2-386.1. He contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction because the Commonwealth did not prove that the victim had a reasonable…”
— Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-386.1(C) — 1 case
— Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-386.1(D) — 1 case
— Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-386.1(E) — 1 case
Commonwealth v. Schneider, 78 Va. Cir. 320 (Hanover Cir. Ct. 2009).
“Overton Harris On January 10, 2005, Defendant received nine separate convictions for unlawful filming, videotaping, or photographing of another in violation of the Code of Virginia § 18.2-386.1. As a result of his convictions, Defendant has been compelled to register as a sex…”
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.