Va. Code » Title 19.2. Criminal Procedure » Chapter 5. Search Warrants
Virginia Code

Va. Code Ann. § 19.2-60 (2026)

Motion for return of seized property and to suppress

✓ laws through the 2026 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section VA-LISlaw.lis.virginia.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A person aggrieved by an allegedly unlawful search or seizure may move the court to return any seized property and to suppress it for use as evidence. The court shall receive evidence on any issue of fact necessary to the decision of the motion. If the motion is granted by a court of record, any seized property shall be restored as soon as practicable unless otherwise subject to lawful detention, and such property shall not be admissible in evidence at any hearing or trial. If the motion is granted by a court not of record, such property shall not be admissible in evidence at any hearing or trial before that court, but the ruling shall have no effect on any hearing or trial in a court of record.

1975, c. 495.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 27 cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1989–2026 · leading case: Williams v. Commonwealth, 642 S.E.2d 295 (Va. Ct. App. 2007).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Williams v. Commonwealth, 642 S.E.2d 295 (Va. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 8× “A motion to suppress the handgun was filed on the grounds that the warrantless search and seizure of the same violated Code § 19.2-60 [3] and the Constitutions of Virginia and the United States.”
Tart v. Commonwealth, 437 S.E.2d 219 (Va. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 18× “" As the dissent acknowledges, at no point in these proceedings, at trial, on brief to this Court, or in oral argument, was a violation of Code § 19.2-60 ever raised. [1] Accordingly, our consideration of this argument is barred by Rule 5A:18.”
Troncoso v. Commonwealth, 407 S.E.2d 349 (Va. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 10× “He argues (1) that Code § 19.2-60 contains a statutory exclusionary rule which is not limited to constitutional violations, (2) that Code § 19.”
Commonwealth v. Brown, 378 S.E.2d 623 (Va. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 4× “See also Code § 19.2-60 (suppression of property unlawfully seized).”
Jackson v. Commonwealth, 583 S.E.2d 780 (Va. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 4× “NOTES [1] See generally Code § 19.2-60 ("A person aggrieved by an allegedly unlawful search or seizure may move the court .”
Jackson v. Commonwealth, 576 S.E.2d 206 (Va. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 4× “NOTES [1] See generally Code § 19.2-60 ("A person aggrieved by an allegedly unlawful search or seizure may move the court .”
Robinson v. Commonwealth, 453 S.E.2d 916 (Va. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 4× “2d at 227 (quoting Code § 19.2-60). II. Even if the strictures of state law are ignored, I believe that federal law requires that we reverse the trial judge's refusal to suppress the evidence.”
West v. Commonwealth, 432 S.E.2d 730 (Va. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 2× “2-60, a procedural statute, did not expressly provide a right of suppression of evidence, a violation of that provision did not require application of the exclusionary rule in the absence of a constitutional violation). Code § 19.”
Taylor v. Commonwealth, 507 S.E.2d 661 (Va. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 2× “2d 349, 350 (1991) (Code § 19.2-60 does not authorize the suppression of evidence unless there is a constitutional violation or a violation of a statute which expressly provides for suppression).”
Joshua Highlander v. Virginia Dep't of Wildlife Resources, 84 Va. App. 404 (Va. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 34× “ee Department of Wildlife Resources conservation police officers entered Joshua Highlander’s property, seized a camera, and searched it without a warrant, Highlander sought declaratory and injunctive relief against the Department and the officers in their individual and official…”
Karl Mogensen v. Virginia State Police, No. 1803243 (Va. Ct. App. Jan. 27, 2026). · cites it 24× “Karl and Deborah Mogensen filed a motion, purportedly under Code § 19.2-60, arguing that the Virginia State Police improperly seized their animals from the Natural Bridge Zoo Park.”
Henri Mauricio Perez Flores v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 906 S.E.2d 165 (Va. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 2× “-4- circuit court noted, the district court’s suppression of evidence resulting from the traffic stop did not necessarily prevent the Commonwealth from proceeding to trial with other competent evidence.5 In other words, a decision to grant a motion to suppress is not a complete…”
Show all 27 citing cases →
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.