A. In any preliminary hearing on a violation of Chapter 11 (§ 4.1-1100 et seq.) of Title 4.1, Article 1 (§ 18.2-247 et seq.) of Chapter 7 of Title 18.2, or subdivision 6 of § 53.1-203, any law-enforcement officer shall be permitted to testify as to the results of field tests that have been approved by the Department of Forensic Science pursuant to regulations adopted in accordance with the Administrative Process Act (§ 2.2-4000 et seq.), regarding whether or not any substance the identity of which is at issue in such hearing is a controlled substance, imitation controlled substance, or marijuana, as defined in § 18.2-247.
B. In any trial for a violation of § 4.1-1105.1, any law-enforcement officer shall be permitted to testify as to the results of any marijuana field test approved as accurate and reliable by the Department of Forensic Science pursuant to regulations adopted in accordance with the Administrative Process Act (§ 2.2-4000 et seq.), regarding whether or not any plant material, the identity of which is at issue, is marijuana provided the defendant has been given written notice of his right to request a full chemical analysis. Such notice shall be on a form approved by the Supreme Court and shall be provided to the defendant prior to trial.
In any case in which the person accused of a violation of § 4.1-1105.1, or the attorney of record for the accused, desires a full chemical analysis of the alleged plant material, he may, by motion prior to trial before the court in which the charge is pending, request such a chemical analysis. Upon such motion, the court shall order that the analysis be performed by the Department of Forensic Science in accordance with the provisions of § 18.2-247 and shall prescribe in its order the method of custody, transfer, and return of evidence submitted for chemical analysis.
1991, c. 477; 1993, c. 33; 2005, cc. 868, 881; 2006, c. 447; 2013, c. 60; 2020, c. 831; 2021, Sp. Sess. I, cc. 550, 551.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
7
cases (
3 in the last 5 years), 1994–2024 · leading case:
Galbraith v. Commonwealth, 446 S.E.2d 633 (Va. Ct. App. 1994).
Galbraith v. Commonwealth, 446 S.E.2d 633 (Va. Ct. App. 1994).
· cites it 4× “Similarly, but limited to preliminary hearings, Code § 19.2-188.1 permits any law enforcement officer to testify as to the results of field tests which have been approved by the Division pursuant to regulations adopted in accordance with the Administrative Process Act (Code §§…”
Berry Morrow v. Commonwealth of Virginia, No. 1933184 (Va. Ct. App. Dec. 27, 2019).
· cites it 10× “2-187, which addresses the admission of certificates of analysis, rather than Code § 19.2-188.1. Therefore, contrary to appellant’s argument, this statement was not a challenge to the Commonwealth’s proffer concerning the written notice.”
Roy Leeshun Williams v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 837 S.E.2d 91 (Va. Ct. App. 2020).
· cites it 7× “He suggests that the Commonwealth did not provide an adequate foundation for its admission pursuant to Code § 19.2-188.1. The Commonwealth asks us to apply the “right result for the wrong reason” principle to affirm the conviction based on judicial notice.”
Travis Sentell Singleton v. Commonwealth of Virginia, No. 0605194 (Va. Ct. App. July 7, 2020).
· cites it 7× “1 provides that in a preliminary hearing on charges involving drugs, or a trial on the charge of possession of marijuana, a “law-enforcement officer shall be permitted to testify as to the results of field tests that have been approved by the Department of Forensic Science”…”
Dana Mark Camann, Jr. v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 896 S.E.2d 370 (Va. Ct. App. 2024).
· cites it 2× “See Code § 19.2-188.1(A). - 34 - (1998) (holding that the trial court should have suppressed evidence found in a warrantless search of the defendant incident to the unlawful arrest of the defendant).”
Dana Mark Camann, Jr. v. Commonwealth of Virginia, No. 0243224 (Va. Ct. App. Feb. 28, 2023).
· cites it 2× “See Code § 19.2-188.1(A). - 34 - (1998) (holding that the trial court should have suppressed evidence found in a warrantless search of the defendant incident to the unlawful arrest of the defendant).”
Dana Mark Camann, Jr. Commonwealth of Virginia, No. 0243224 (Va. Ct. App. Mar. 28, 2023).
· cites it 2× “See Code § 19.2-188.1(A). - 34 - (1998) (holding that the trial court should have suppressed evidence found in a warrantless search of the defendant incident to the unlawful arrest of the defendant).”
Va. Code Ann. § 19.2-188.1(A): 3 cases
Dana Mark Camann, Jr. v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 896 S.E.2d 370 (Va. Ct. App. 2024).
“See Code § 19.2-188.1(A). - 34 - (1998) (holding that the trial court should have suppressed evidence found in a warrantless search of the defendant incident to the unlawful arrest of the defendant).”
Dana Mark Camann, Jr. v. Commonwealth of Virginia, No. 0243224 (Va. Ct. App. Feb. 28, 2023).
“See Code § 19.2-188.1(A). - 34 - (1998) (holding that the trial court should have suppressed evidence found in a warrantless search of the defendant incident to the unlawful arrest of the defendant).”
Dana Mark Camann, Jr. Commonwealth of Virginia, No. 0243224 (Va. Ct. App. Mar. 28, 2023).
“See Code § 19.2-188.1(A). - 34 - (1998) (holding that the trial court should have suppressed evidence found in a warrantless search of the defendant incident to the unlawful arrest of the defendant).”
Va. Code Ann. § 19.2-188.1(B): 1 case
Berry Morrow v. Commonwealth of Virginia, No. 1933184 (Va. Ct. App. Dec. 27, 2019).
“2-187, which addresses the admission of certificates of analysis, rather than Code § 19.2-188.1. Therefore, contrary to appellant’s argument, this statement was not a challenge to the Commonwealth’s proffer concerning the written notice.”
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.