A law-enforcement officer may execute within his jurisdiction a warrant, capias or summons issued anywhere in the Commonwealth. A jail officer as defined in § 53.1-1 employed at a regional jail or jail farm may execute upon a person being held in his jail a warrant, capias or summons issued anywhere in the Commonwealth. A warrant or capias shall be executed by the arrest of the accused, and a summons shall be executed by delivering a copy to the accused personally.
If the accused is a corporation, partnership, unincorporated association or legal entity other than an individual, a summons may be executed by service on the entity in the same manner as provided in Title 8.01 for service of process on that entity in a civil proceeding. However, if the summons is served on the entity by delivery to a registered agent or to any other agent who is not an officer, director, managing agent or employee of the entity, such agent shall not be personally subject to penalty for failure to appear as provided in § 19.2-128, nor shall the agent be subject to punishment for contempt for failure to appear under his summons as provided in § 19.2-129.
The law-enforcement officer or jail officer executing a warrant or capias shall endorse the date of execution thereon and make return thereof to a judicial officer. The law-enforcement officer executing a summons shall endorse the date of execution thereon and make return thereof to the court to which the summons is returnable.
Whenever a person is arrested upon a warrant or capias in a county or city other than that in which the charge is to be tried, the law-enforcement officer or jail officer making the arrest shall either (i) bring the accused forthwith before a judicial officer in the locality where the arrest was made or where the charge is to be tried or (ii) commit the accused to the custody of an officer from the county or city where the charge is to be tried who shall bring the accused forthwith before a judicial officer in the county or city in which the charge is to be tried. The judicial officer before whom the accused is brought shall immediately conduct a bail hearing and either admit the accused to bail or commit him to jail for transfer forthwith to the county or city where the charge is to be tried.
Code 1950, §§ 19.1-98, 19.1-99; 1960, c. 366; 1975, c. 495; 1979, c. 661; 1993, c. 431; 1994, c. 933; 1997, c. 10; 1998, c. 615; 2013, c. 207.
Notes of Decisions
Frye v. Commonwealth, 345 S.E.2d 267 (Va. 1986).
· cites it 5× “2d 752, 754-55 (1980) (Code § 19.2-76, requiring presentation before a magistrate of a certain territorial jurisdiction, is procedural, not rising *377 to constitutional dimension and not requiring application of exclusionary rule).”
Tharp v. Commonwealth, 270 S.E.2d 752 (Va. 1980).
· cites it 5× “Additionally, defendant argues that even if Barrett had the power to arrest him in Virginia Beach, the officer violated the following provisions of Code § 19.2-76 in effect at the time of the arrest: Whenever a person is arrested upon a warrant in a county or corporation other…”
Hearn v. Hudson, 549 F. Supp. 949 (W.D. Va. 1982).
· cites it 3× “” Va.Code § 19.2-76. Indeed, the warrant in this case commanded the officer holding it to arrest the plaintiff.”
Horne v. Commonwealth, 339 S.E.2d 186 (Va. 1986).
· cites it 2× “The trial court concluded that Horne’s detention violated Code § 19.2-76 and Rule 3A:5(a)(3) because Horne was not taken before a magistrate without unnecessary delay.”
Thompson v. Commonwealth, 390 S.E.2d 198 (Va. Ct. App. 1990).
· cites it 2× “In Horne , the Virginia Supreme Court held that a confession obtained during the period of an illegal detention in violation of Code § 19.2-76 and Rule 3A:5(a)(3) requiring that an accused be taken forthwith before a magistrate was, nonetheless, admissible in evidence.”
Echavarry v. Commonwealth, 725 S.E.2d 151 (Va. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 2× “5 Pursuant to Code § 19.2-76, Echavarry was then committed to jail pending trial.”
Rowe v. Grizzard, 591 F. Supp. 389 (E.D. Va. 1984).
· cites it 2× “Code § 19.2-76; N. petitioner was illegally arrested in that the arrest warrants were issued in the absence of probable cause or were based upon perjured statements; O.”
Terrell v. Petrie, 763 F. Supp. 1342 (E.D. Va. 1991).
“” This provision clearly contemplates that either the sheriff or the police department will be responsible for execution of warrants.”
Troy Lamont Boone v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 728 S.E.2d 517 (Va. Ct. App. 2012).
“in which an unexecuted warrant becomes unusable is by its execution under § 19.2-76, or by its destruction pursuant to an order of the circuit court under § 19.”
United States v. Blevins, 892 F. Supp. 2d 754 (E.D. Va. 2012).
· cites it 3× “” Va. Code § 19.2-76. . Specifically, these charges were dismissed on the Commonwealth’s motion for nolle prosequi.”
Commonwealth v. Arava, 56 Va. Cir. 240 (Arlington Cir. Ct. 2001).
· cites it 3× “See Va. Code § 19.2-76 and § 19.2-82. This contention is not supported by law.”
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.