A. A judicial officer may issue an emergency custody order, upon the sworn petition of any responsible person or upon his own motion, based upon probable cause to believe that a respondent on conditional release within his judicial district has violated the conditions of his release and is no longer a proper subject for conditional release. The judicial officer shall forward a copy of the petition and the emergency custody order to the circuit court that conditionally released the respondent, the Attorney General, the Department, and the attorney for the Commonwealth for the locality that is the location of the respondent's residence. Petitions and orders for emergency custody of conditionally released respondents pursuant to this section may be filed, issued, served, or executed by electronic means, with or without the use of two-way electronic video and audio communication, and returned in the same manner with the same force, effect, and authority as an original document. All signatures thereon shall be treated as original signatures.
B. The emergency custody order shall require a law-enforcement officer to take the respondent into custody immediately. A law-enforcement officer may lawfully go to or be sent beyond the territorial limits of the county, city, or town in which he serves to any point in the Commonwealth for the purpose of executing an emergency custody order pursuant to this section. The respondent shall be transported to a secure facility specified by the Department where a person designated by the Department who is skilled in the diagnosis and risk assessment of sex offenders and knowledgeable about the treatment of sex offenders shall, as soon as practicable, perform a mental health examination of the respondent, including a personal interview. The mental health evaluator shall consider the criteria in § 37.2-912 and shall opine whether the respondent remains suitable for conditional release. The evaluator shall report his findings and conclusions in writing to the Department, the Office of the Attorney General, counsel for the respondent, and the court in which the petition was filed. The evaluator's report shall become part of the record in the case.
C. The respondent on conditional release shall remain in custody until a hearing is held in the circuit court that conditionally released the respondent on the motion or petition to determine if he should be returned to the custody of the Commissioner. The hearing shall be given priority on the court's docket.
D. The respondent's failure to comply with the conditions of release, including outpatient treatment, may be admitted into evidence. The evaluator designated in subsection B may be permitted to testify at the hearing as to his diagnosis, his opinion as to whether the respondent remains suitable for conditional release, his recommendation as to treatment and supervision, and the basis for his opinions. If upon hearing the evidence, the court finds that the respondent on conditional release has violated the conditions of his release and that the violation of conditions was sufficient to render him no longer suitable for conditional release, the court shall revoke his conditional release and order him returned to the custody of the Commissioner for secure inpatient treatment. The respondent may petition the court for re-release pursuant to the conditions set forth in § 37.2-911 no sooner than six months from his return to custody. The respondent petitioning for re-release shall transmit a copy of the petition to the Attorney General, the Commissioner, and the attorney for the Commonwealth for the locality that is the proposed location of the respondent's residence.
1999, cc. 946, 985, § 37.1-70.14; 2001, c. 776; 2003, cc. 989, 1018; 2005, cc. 51, 716; 2009, c. 740; 2011, c. 42; 2015, c. 662.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
9
cases (
4 in the last 5 years), 2011–2026 · leading case:
Com. v. Amerson, 706 S.E.2d 879 (Va. 2011).
Com. v. Amerson, 706 S.E.2d 879 (Va. 2011).
· cites it 4× “2-913(B), which addresses the execution of an emergency custody order for an SVP who has violated the conditions of his release, only contemplates the conditional release of an SVP inside the Commonwealth: The emergency custody order shall require a law-enforcement officer to…”
Thomas v. Commonwealth, 829 S.E.2d 534 (Va. 2019).
· cites it 50× “The fact that a respondent in a proceeding under Code § 37.2-913 is provided "some of the safeguards applicable in criminal trials cannot itself turn these proceedings into criminal prosecutions requiring the full panoply of rights applicable there.”
Thomas v. Commonwealth (CORRECTED) (Va. 2019).
· cites it 43× “The fact that a respondent in a proceeding under Code § 37.2-913 is provided “some of the safeguards applicable in 10 criminal trials cannot itself turn these proceedings into criminal prosecutions requiring the full panoply of rights applicable there.”
Commonwealth of Virginia v. William Messenger (Va. Ct. App. 2026).
· cites it 18× “2-900 to -921), was taken into custody through an emergency custody order (“ECO”) issued by a magistrate pursuant to Code § 37.2-913. After a hearing before the Circuit Court of Prince William County (“circuit court”), the circuit court found that any violations of the…”
Saunders v. Commonwealth of Virginia (E.D. Va. 2022).
· cites it 2× “a violation of federal rights pertaining to his state criminal probation violation hearing held on November 27, 2018, in the Circuit Court for the County of Southampton (“Trial Court”) “to determine whether [Petitioner] violated the terms of his conditional release as a sexually…”
— Va. Code Ann. § 37.2-913(A) — 4 cases
Commonwealth of Virginia v. William Messenger (Va. Ct. App. 2026).
“2-900 to -921), was taken into custody through an emergency custody order (“ECO”) issued by a magistrate pursuant to Code § 37.2-913. After a hearing before the Circuit Court of Prince William County (“circuit court”), the circuit court found that any violations of the…”
Thomas v. Commonwealth, 829 S.E.2d 534 (Va. 2019).
“The fact that a respondent in a proceeding under Code § 37.2-913 is provided "some of the safeguards applicable in criminal trials cannot itself turn these proceedings into criminal prosecutions requiring the full panoply of rights applicable there.”
Thomas v. Commonwealth (CORRECTED) (Va. 2019).
“The fact that a respondent in a proceeding under Code § 37.2-913 is provided “some of the safeguards applicable in 10 criminal trials cannot itself turn these proceedings into criminal prosecutions requiring the full panoply of rights applicable there.”
— Va. Code Ann. § 37.2-913(B) — 4 cases
Com. v. Amerson, 706 S.E.2d 879 (Va. 2011).
“2-913(B), which addresses the execution of an emergency custody order for an SVP who has violated the conditions of his release, only contemplates the conditional release of an SVP inside the Commonwealth: The emergency custody order shall require a law-enforcement officer to…”
Thomas v. Commonwealth, 829 S.E.2d 534 (Va. 2019).
“The fact that a respondent in a proceeding under Code § 37.2-913 is provided "some of the safeguards applicable in criminal trials cannot itself turn these proceedings into criminal prosecutions requiring the full panoply of rights applicable there.”
Thomas v. Commonwealth (CORRECTED) (Va. 2019).
“The fact that a respondent in a proceeding under Code § 37.2-913 is provided “some of the safeguards applicable in 10 criminal trials cannot itself turn these proceedings into criminal prosecutions requiring the full panoply of rights applicable there.”
— Va. Code Ann. § 37.2-913(C) — 4 cases
Commonwealth of Virginia v. William Messenger (Va. Ct. App. 2026).
“2-900 to -921), was taken into custody through an emergency custody order (“ECO”) issued by a magistrate pursuant to Code § 37.2-913. After a hearing before the Circuit Court of Prince William County (“circuit court”), the circuit court found that any violations of the…”
Thomas v. Commonwealth, 829 S.E.2d 534 (Va. 2019).
“The fact that a respondent in a proceeding under Code § 37.2-913 is provided "some of the safeguards applicable in criminal trials cannot itself turn these proceedings into criminal prosecutions requiring the full panoply of rights applicable there.”
Thomas v. Commonwealth (CORRECTED) (Va. 2019).
“The fact that a respondent in a proceeding under Code § 37.2-913 is provided “some of the safeguards applicable in 10 criminal trials cannot itself turn these proceedings into criminal prosecutions requiring the full panoply of rights applicable there.”
— Va. Code Ann. § 37.2-913(D) — 3 cases
Thomas v. Commonwealth, 829 S.E.2d 534 (Va. 2019).
“The fact that a respondent in a proceeding under Code § 37.2-913 is provided "some of the safeguards applicable in criminal trials cannot itself turn these proceedings into criminal prosecutions requiring the full panoply of rights applicable there.”
Thomas v. Commonwealth (CORRECTED) (Va. 2019).
“The fact that a respondent in a proceeding under Code § 37.2-913 is provided “some of the safeguards applicable in 10 criminal trials cannot itself turn these proceedings into criminal prosecutions requiring the full panoply of rights applicable there.”
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.