No officer of the law or any other person shall search any place, thing or person, except by virtue of and under a warrant issued by a proper officer. Any officer or other person searching any place, thing or person otherwise than by virtue of and under a search warrant, shall be guilty of malfeasance in office. Any officer or person violating the provisions of this section shall be liable to any person aggrieved thereby in both compensatory and punitive damages. Any officer found guilty of a second offense under this section shall, upon conviction thereof, immediately forfeit his office, and such finding shall be deemed to create a vacancy in such office to be filled according to law.
Provided, however, that any officer empowered to enforce the game laws or marine fisheries laws as set forth in Title 28.2 may without a search warrant enter for the purpose of enforcing such laws, any freight yard or room, passenger depot, baggage room or warehouse, storage room or warehouse, train, baggage car, passenger car, express car, Pullman car or freight car of any common carrier, or any boat, automobile or other vehicle; but nothing in this proviso contained shall be construed to permit a search of any occupied berth or compartment on any passenger car or boat or any baggage, bag, trunk, box or other closed container without a search warrant.
Code 1950, § 19.1-88; 1960, c. 366; 1975, c. 495; 1976, c. 293; 1978, c. 721; 1997, c. 147.
Notes of Decisions
Buonocore v. Chesapeake & Potomac Tel. Co., 492 S.E.2d 439 (Va. 1997).
· cites it 30× “In this appeal, we consider whether Code § 19.2-59 provides an employee a cause of action against his corporate employer and its agent who conducted a warrantless search of the employee’s home.”
Burnham v. West, 681 F. Supp. 1169 (E.D. Va. 1988).
· cites it 32× “section 19.2-59 (1983), 1 and that defendants’ conduct satisfies the requirements for both compensatory and punitive damages liability under Virginia law.”
Gray v. Rhoads, 55 Va. Cir. 362 (Charlottesville Cir. Ct. 2001).
· cites it 20× “Although Plaintiffs Motion for Judgment does not cite any authority for recoveiy under Count III, his memorandum in opposition to demurrer cites two sources of authority for the unreasonable seizure claim: Article I, §§ 10 and 11, of the Virginia Constitution, and Va. Code §…”
Amato v. City of Richmond, 875 F. Supp. 1124 (E.D. Va. 1994).
· cites it 16× “Count II of Scott’s complaint and Count III of Amato’s complaint assert precisely the same claims against the same four defendants as asserted in Count I, except that these are asserted as violations of state law, Va.Code Ann. § 19.2-59. Count II of Amato’s complaint asserts a…”
Williams v. Agency, Inc., 997 F. Supp. 2d 409 (E.D. Va. 2014).
· cites it 13× “Va.Code § 19.2-59. Despite Plaintiffs’ characterization, The Agency is a private company and there is no support in Virginia law suggesting otherwise.”
Reynolds v. Commonwealth, 388 S.E.2d 659 (Va. Ct. App. 1990).
· cites it 4× “Appellants further allege that the warrantless entry into their house by Bailey and Vitek was in violation of their rights under the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States and Code § 19.2-59, and that, although the marijuana was in plain view, those exceptions…”
Hunsberger v. Wood, 564 F. Supp. 2d 559 (W.D. Va. 2008).
· cites it 8× “§ 1983 ; an unreasonable search and seizure claim, pursuant to Virginia Code § 19.2-59, against Wood only; and a trespass claim, pursuant to Virginia law.”
Smith v. Norfolk City Sch. Bd., 46 Va. Cir. 238 (Norfolk Cir. Ct. 1998).
· cites it 14× “The Plaintiffs allege that the Policy, as it is currently written, adopted, and implemented in the Norfolk school system, allows for searches which are violative of Article I, § 10, of the Virginia Constitution and Virginia Code § 19.2-59 (Pis.’ First Am. Compl. ¶ 3.”
Thims v. Commonwealth, 235 S.E.2d 443 (Va. 1977).
· cites it 3× “Thims further argues that Dwyer’s actions were prohibited by Code § 19.2-59 (Repl. Vol. 1975) because the only warrantless search authorized by that statute, except for enforcement of the game laws, was search incident to arrest.”
Hilliard v. Commonwealth, 601 S.E.2d 652 (Va. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 4× “Prior to his trial on the charges at issue, Hilliard filed a motion to suppress alleging that police obtained the statement he provided during the September 16, 1999 interview, in violation of his "fourth, fifth and sixth Amendment [rights]" "and/or" in violation of his rights…”
Commonwealth v. Brown, 378 S.E.2d 623 (Va. Ct. App. 1989).
· cites it 4× “345; Code § 19.2-59. In Hall v. Commonwealth, 138 Va.”
Hart v. Commonwealth, 269 S.E.2d 806 (Va. 1980).
· cites it 2× “345; Code § 19.2-59. In Hall v. Commonwealth, 138 Va.”
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.