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

Va. Code Ann. § 19.2-67 (2026)

Disclosure of information obtained by authorized means

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

A. Any investigative or law-enforcement officer, or police officer of a county or city, who, by any means authorized by this chapter, has obtained knowledge of the contents of any wire, electronic or oral communication, or evidence derived therefrom, may disclose such contents to another investigative or law-enforcement officer, or police officer of a county or city, to the extent that such disclosure is appropriate to the proper performance of the official duties of the officer making or receiving the disclosure.

B. Any investigative or law-enforcement officer or police officer of a county or city, who, by any means authorized by this chapter, has obtained knowledge of the contents of any wire, electronic or oral communication or evidence derived therefrom may use such contents to the extent such use is appropriate to the proper performance of his official duties.

C. Any person who has received, by any means authorized by this chapter, any information concerning a wire, electronic or oral communication, or evidence derived therefrom intercepted in accordance with the provisions of this chapter may disclose the contents of that communication or such derivative evidence while giving testimony under oath or affirmation in any criminal proceeding for an offense specified in § 19.2-66, or any conspiracy or attempt to commit the same, in any court of the United States or of any state or in any federal or state grand jury proceeding.

D. No wire, electronic or oral communication which is a privileged communication between the parties to the conversation which is intercepted in accordance with, or in violation of, the provisions of this chapter shall lose its privileged character, nor shall it be disclosed or used in any way.

E. When an investigative or law-enforcement officer, or police officer of a county or city, while engaged in intercepting wire, electronic or oral communications in the manner authorized herein, or observing or monitoring such interception intercepts, observes or monitors wire, electronic or oral communications relating to offenses other than those specified in the order of authorization, the contents thereof, and evidence derived therefrom, shall not be disclosed or used as provided in subsections A, B and C of this section, unless such communications or derivative evidence relates to a felony, in which case use or disclosure may be made as provided in subsections A, B and C of this section. Such use and disclosure pursuant to subsection C of this section shall be permitted only when approved by a judge of competent jurisdiction where such judge finds, on subsequent application, that such communications were otherwise intercepted in accordance with the provisions of this chapter. Violations of this subsection E shall be punishable as provided in § 19.2-62.

Code 1950, § 19.1-89.7; 1973, c. 442; 1975, c. 495; 1976, c. 231; 1979, c. 602; 1983, c. 536; 1988, c. 889.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 1977–1984 · leading case: Morton v. Commonwealth, 315 S.E.2d 224 (Va. 1984).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Morton v. Commonwealth, 315 S.E.2d 224 (Va. 1984). · cites it 14× “3 § 19.2-67. Disclosure of information obtained by authorized means.”
Wilks v. Commonwealth, 234 S.E.2d 250 (Va. 1977). · cites it 6× “Va. Code § 19.2-67(3). 2 *888 The defendant concedes that interception of the oral communication to which he was a party was not unlawful because consented to by Hockaday.”
Cogdill v. Commonwealth, 247 S.E.2d 392 (Va. 1978). · cites it 2× “2-62(1); that the Act expressly authorizes disclosure in court, but only during certain specified criminal proceedings, Code § 19.2-67(3); and that, because the crime for which he was tried was not one of the offenses specified, disclosure was unlawful.”
Va. Code Ann. § 19.2-67(3): 3 cases
Wilks v. Commonwealth, 234 S.E.2d 250 (Va. 1977). “Va. Code § 19.2-67(3). 2 *888 The defendant concedes that interception of the oral communication to which he was a party was not unlawful because consented to by Hockaday.”
Cogdill v. Commonwealth, 247 S.E.2d 392 (Va. 1978). “2-62(1); that the Act expressly authorizes disclosure in court, but only during certain specified criminal proceedings, Code § 19.2-67(3); and that, because the crime for which he was tried was not one of the offenses specified, disclosure was unlawful.”
Morton v. Commonwealth, 315 S.E.2d 224 (Va. 1984). “3 § 19.2-67. Disclosure of information obtained by authorized means.”
Va. Code Ann. § 19.2-67(5): 2 cases
Morton v. Commonwealth, 315 S.E.2d 224 (Va. 1984). “3 § 19.2-67. Disclosure of information obtained by authorized means.”
Wilks v. Commonwealth, 234 S.E.2d 250 (Va. 1977). “Va. Code § 19.2-67(3). 2 *888 The defendant concedes that interception of the oral communication to which he was a party was not unlawful because consented to by Hockaday.”
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.