Va. Code » Title 19.2. Criminal Procedure » Chapter 6. Interception of Wire, Electronic or Oral Communications
Virginia Code

Va. Code Ann. § 19.2-66 (2026)

When Attorney General or Chief Deputy Attorney General may apply for order authorizing interception of communications

✓ 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. (Effective until July 1, 2027) The Attorney General or Chief Deputy Attorney General, if the Attorney General so designates in writing, in any case where the Attorney General is authorized by law to prosecute or pursuant to a request in his official capacity of an attorney for the Commonwealth in any city or county, may apply to a judge of competent jurisdiction for an order authorizing the interception of wire, electronic or oral communications by the Department of State Police, when such interception may reasonably be expected to provide evidence of the commission of a felonious offense of extortion, bribery, kidnapping, murder, any felony violation of § 18.2-248 or 18.2-248.1, any felony violation of Chapter 29 (§ 59.1-364 et seq.) of Title 59.1, any felony violation of Article 2 (§ 18.2-38 et seq.), Article 2.1 (§ 18.2-46.1 et seq.), Article 2.2 (§ 18.2-46.4 et seq.), Article 5 (§ 18.2-58 et seq.), Article 6 (§ 18.2-59 et seq.) or any felonies that are not Class 6 felonies in Article 7 (§ 18.2-61 et seq.) of Chapter 4 of Title 18.2, or any conspiracy to commit any of the foregoing offenses. The Attorney General or Chief Deputy Attorney General may apply for authorization for the observation or monitoring of the interception by a police department of a county or city, by a sheriff's office, or by law-enforcement officers of the United States. Such application shall be made, and such order may be granted, in conformity with the provisions of § 19.2-68.

A. (Effective July 1, 2027) The Attorney General or Chief Deputy Attorney General, if the Attorney General so designates in writing, in any case where the Attorney General is authorized by law to prosecute or pursuant to a request in his official capacity of an attorney for the Commonwealth in any city or county, may apply to a judge of competent jurisdiction for an order authorizing the interception of wire, electronic or oral communications by the Department of State Police, when such interception may reasonably be expected to provide evidence of the commission of a felonious offense of extortion, bribery, kidnapping, murder, any felony violation of § 18.2-248, any felony violation of Chapter 29 (§ 59.1-364 et seq.) of Title 59.1, any felony violation of Article 2 (§ 18.2-38 et seq.), Article 2.1 (§ 18.2-46.1 et seq.), Article 2.2 (§ 18.2-46.4 et seq.), Article 5 (§ 18.2-58 et seq.), Article 6 (§ 18.2-59 et seq.) or any felonies that are not Class 6 felonies in Article 7 (§ 18.2-61 et seq.) of Chapter 4 of Title 18.2, or any conspiracy to commit any of the foregoing offenses. The Attorney General or Chief Deputy Attorney General may apply for authorization for the observation or monitoring of the interception by a police department of a county or city, by a sheriff's office, or by law-enforcement officers of the United States. Such application shall be made, and such order may be granted, in conformity with the provisions of § 19.2-68.

B. The application for an order under subsection B of § 19.2-68 shall be made as follows:

1. In the case of an application for a wire or electronic interception, a judge of competent jurisdiction shall have the authority to issue an order under subsection B of § 19.2-68 if there is probable cause to believe that an offense was committed, is being committed, or will be committed or the person or persons whose communications are to be intercepted live, work, subscribe to a wire or electronic communication system, maintain an address or a post office box, or are making the communication within the territorial jurisdiction of the court.

2. In the case of an application for an oral intercept, a judge of competent jurisdiction shall have the authority to issue an order under subsection B of § 19.2-68 if there is probable cause to believe that an offense was committed, is being committed, or will be committed or the physical location of the oral communication to be intercepted is within the territorial jurisdiction of the court.

C. For the purposes of an order entered pursuant to subsection B of § 19.2-68 for the interception of a wire or electronic communication, such communication shall be deemed to be intercepted in the jurisdiction where the order is entered, regardless of the physical location or the method by which the communication is captured or routed to the monitoring location.

Code 1950, § 19.1-89.6; 1973, c. 442; 1975, c. 495; 1976, c. 271; 1979, c. 602; 1982, cc. 40, 274; 1988, cc. 855, 889; 2002, cc. 588, 623; 2004, c. 122; 2005, c. 934; 2011, cc. 403, 414; 2013, cc. 448, 664; 2026, Sp. Sess. I, c. 1.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases, 1977–2007 · leading case: Smith v. Commonwealth, 353 S.E.2d 159 (Va. Ct. App. 1987).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Smith v. Commonwealth, 353 S.E.2d 159 (Va. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 15× “” Specifically, appellants argue that the order obtained pursuant to Code § 19.2-66, which authorized the intercept of wire communications, was invalid.”
Morton v. Commonwealth, 315 S.E.2d 224 (Va. 1984). · cites it 14× “Code § 19.2-66, as it read at the time of the wiretap in question, 1 permitted the Attorney General to apply to *219 an appropriate judge for an order authorizing the interception of wire or oral communications when such interception might reasonably be expected to provide…”
Belmer v. Commonwealth, 553 S.E.2d 123 (Va. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 4× “Code §§ 19.2-66 and 19.2-68 establish a procedure under which the Attorney General may apply for an order authorizing the interception of a wire or oral communication.”
Wilks v. Commonwealth, 234 S.E.2d 250 (Va. 1977). · cites it 4× “Va. Code § 19.2-66. 1 Neither is every disclosure unlawful.”
Carpenter v. Commonwealth, 654 S.E.2d 345 (Va. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 2× “Carpenter was acting as an agent of the police when she made the recording and that her tape recording of appellant’s statements therefore required a court order pursuant to Code §§ 19.2-66 and 19.2-68. A tape recording made in violation of these statutes, the argument…”
Commonwealth v. Stepp, 45 Va. Cir. 263 (Loudoun Cir. Ct. 1998). · cites it 2× “*265 Section 19.2-66, pertaining to wiretaps, requires that the order be issued by a judge of the jurisdiction in which the requested intercept is to be made.”
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.