If any person is intoxicated in public, whether such intoxication results from alcohol, narcotic drug, or other intoxicant or drug of whatever nature, he is guilty of a Class 4 misdemeanor. In any area in which there is located a court-approved detoxification center, a law-enforcement officer may authorize the transportation, by police or otherwise, of public inebriates to such detoxification center in lieu of arrest; however, no person shall be involuntarily detained in such center.
Code 1950, § 18.1-237; 1960, c. 358; 1964, c. 434; 1975, cc. 14, 15; 1979, c. 654; 1982, c. 666; 1983, c. 187; 1990, c. 965; 2020, c. 160.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
60
cases (
9 in the last 5 years), 1984–2026 · leading case:
Crislip v. Commonwealth, 554 S.E.2d 96 (Va. Ct. App. 2001).
Crislip v. Commonwealth, 554 S.E.2d 96 (Va. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 17× “Essentially, Crislip argues that the words “in public” under Code § 18.2-388 are synonymous with the words “public place,” as that term is defined in Code § 4.”
McGhee v. Com., 701 S.E.2d 58 (Va. 2010).
· cites it 6× “We consider whether police officers had probable cause to arrest appellant Bradley William McGhee ("McGhee") for violating Code § 18.2-388 (public intoxication) and whether the officers conducted a valid search of McGhee's vehicle.”
Manning v. Caldwell for City of Roanoke, 930 F.3d 264 (4th Cir. 2019).
· cites it 2× “See Va. Code §§ 18.2-388, 18.2-11(d). B. Each of the named Plaintiffs in this case, Bryan Manning, Ryan Williams, Richard Deckerhoff, and Richard Eugene Walls, alleges that he has been interdicted as an "habitual drunkard" pursuant to this statutory scheme.”
Debroux v. Commonwealth, 528 S.E.2d 151 (Va. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 8× “PUBLIC DRUNKENNESS The search of appellant may nevertheless have been reasonable if supported by probable cause to arrest for public drunkenness under Code § 18.2-388. However, as set out above, the trial court did not consider the probable cause issue and made no factual…”
Flaherty v. Commonwealth, 415 S.E.2d 867 (Va. Ct. App. 1992).
· cites it 14× “2-351; and (2) that a 1983 conviction was for violating Code § 18.2-388 and should not be considered a qualifying conviction for habitual offender status under Code § 46.”
United States v. Romero-Caceres, 356 F. Supp. 3d 541 (E.D. Va. 2018).
· cites it 3× “2-894, Drunk in Public in violation of Va. Code § 18.2-388, and Reckless Driving in violation of Va.”
Alan Neff v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 758 S.E.2d 87 (Va. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 4× “The trial court convicted Alan Neff of being intoxicated in public in violation of Code § 18.2-388, and assault and battery of a police officer in violation of Code § 18.”
Burgess v. City of Virginia Beach, 385 S.E.2d 59 (Va. Ct. App. 1989).
· cites it 4× “Driving by in his Blazer at about 30 miles per hour, Burgess stuck his head out of the window and yelled, "F_____ cops.”
A.R.A. v. Commonwealth, 809 S.E.2d 660 (Va. 2018).
· cites it 2× “1, and public swearing or intoxication, in violation of Code § 18.2-388. The charges stemmed from her behavior after she drank to excess.”
Kal Robert Molinet v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 779 S.E.2d 231 (Va. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 2× “Appellant was also charged with public intoxication in violation of Code § 18.2-388. The jury found appellant not guilty of that charge.”
Jackson v. Commonwealth, 604 S.E.2d 122 (Va. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 2× “nor be drunk in public in violation of Code § 18.2-388. Any interdicted person found to be in violation of this section shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.”
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.