Virginia Code

Va. Code Ann. § 46.2-391 (2026)

Revocation of license for multiple convictions of driving while intoxicated; exception; petition for restoration of privilege

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section VA-LISlaw.lis.virginia.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A. The Commissioner shall forthwith revoke and not thereafter reissue for three years the driver's license of any person on receiving a record of the conviction of any person who (i) is adjudged to be a second offender in violation of the provisions of subsection A of § 46.2-341.24 (driving a commercial motor vehicle under the influence of drugs or intoxicants), or § 18.2-266 (driving under the influence of drugs or intoxicants), if the subsequent violation occurred within 10 years of the prior violation, or (ii) is convicted of any two or more offenses of § 18.2-272 (driving while the driver's license has been forfeited for a conviction under § 18.2-266) if the second or subsequent violation occurred within 10 years of the prior offense. However, if the Commissioner has received a copy of a court order authorizing issuance of a restricted license as provided in subsection E of § 18.2-271.1, he shall proceed as provided in the order of the court. For the purposes of this subsection, an offense in violation of a valid local ordinance, or law of any other jurisdiction, which ordinance or law is substantially similar to any provision of Virginia law herein shall be considered an offense in violation of such provision of Virginia law. Additionally, in no event shall the Commissioner reinstate the driver's license of any person convicted of a violation of § 18.2-266, or of a substantially similar valid local ordinance or law of another jurisdiction, until receipt of notification that such person has successfully completed an alcohol safety action program if such person was required by court order to do so unless the requirement for completion of the program has been waived by the court for good cause shown. A conviction includes a finding of not innocent in the case of a juvenile.

B. The Commissioner shall forthwith revoke and not thereafter reissue the driver's license of any person after receiving a record of the conviction of any person (i) convicted of a violation of § 18.2-36.1 or 18.2-51.4 or a felony violation of § 18.2-266 or (ii) convicted of three offenses arising out of separate incidents or occurrences within a period of 10 years in violation of the provisions of subsection A of § 46.2-341.24, § 18.2-266, or a substantially similar ordinance or law of any other jurisdiction, or any combination of three such offenses. A conviction includes a finding of not innocent in the case of a juvenile.

C. Any person who has had his driver's license revoked in accordance with subsection B may petition the circuit court of his residence, or, if a nonresident of Virginia, any circuit court:

1. For restoration of his privilege to drive a motor vehicle in the Commonwealth before the expiration of five years from the date of his last conviction. On such petition, and for good cause shown, the court may authorize the issuance of a restricted license on the condition that such person install an ignition interlock system in accordance with § 18.2-270.1 on all motor vehicles, as defined in § 46.2-100, owned by or registered to him, in whole or in part, for the duration of the suspension period in accordance with the provisions of § 18.2-270.1, subsection E of § 18.2-271.1, and upon whatever other conditions the court may prescribe, subject to the provisions of law relating to issuance of driver's licenses, if the court is satisfied from the evidence presented that (i) at the time of his previous convictions, the petitioner was addicted to or psychologically dependent on the use of alcohol or other drugs; (ii) at the time of the hearing on the petition, he is no longer addicted to or psychologically dependent on the use of alcohol or other drugs; and (iii) the defendant does not constitute a threat to the safety and welfare of himself or others with regard to the driving of a motor vehicle. However, prior to acting on the petition, the court shall order that an evaluation of the person, to include an assessment of his degree of alcohol abuse and the appropriate treatment therefor, if any, be conducted by a Virginia Alcohol Safety Action Program and recommendations therefrom be submitted to the court, and the court shall give the recommendations such weight as the court deems appropriate.

2. For restoration of his privilege to drive a motor vehicle in the Commonwealth after the expiration of five years from the date of his last conviction. On such petition, and for good cause shown, the court may, in its discretion, restore to the person the privilege to drive a motor vehicle in the Commonwealth on condition that such person install an ignition interlock system in accordance with § 18.2-270.1 on all motor vehicles, as defined in § 46.2-100, owned by or registered to him, in whole or in part, for a period of at least six months, and upon whatever other conditions the court may prescribe, subject to the provisions of law relating to issuance of driver's licenses, if the court is satisfied from the evidence presented that (i) at the time of his previous convictions, the petitioner was addicted to or psychologically dependent on the use of alcohol or other drugs; (ii) at the time of the hearing on the petition, he is no longer addicted to or psychologically dependent on the use of alcohol or other drugs; and (iii) the defendant does not constitute a threat to the safety and welfare of himself or others with regard to the driving of a motor vehicle. However, prior to acting on the petition, the court shall order that an evaluation of the person, to include an assessment of his degree of alcohol abuse and the appropriate treatment therefor, if any, be conducted by a Virginia Alcohol Safety Action Program and recommendations therefrom be submitted to the court, and the court shall give the recommendations such weight as the court deems appropriate. The court may, in lieu of restoring the person's privilege to drive, authorize the issuance of a restricted license for a period not to exceed five years in accordance with the provisions of § 18.2-270.1 and subsection E of § 18.2-271.1. The court shall notify the Virginia Alcohol Safety Action Program that during the term of the restricted license it shall monitor the person's compliance with the terms of the restrictions imposed by the court. Any violation of the restrictions shall be reported to the court, and the court may then modify the restrictions or revoke the license.

3. For a restricted license to authorize such person to drive a motor vehicle in the Commonwealth in the course of his employment and to drive a motor vehicle to and from his home to the place of his employment after the expiration of three years from the date of his last conviction unless such person's last conviction resulted from a final order being entered by a court after the successful completion of a Veterans Treatment Court Program, behavioral health docket, or other specialty docket established pursuant to § 18.2-254.2 or 18.2-254.3 or Rule 1:25 of the Rules of Supreme Court of Virginia. If such person's last conviction resulted from a final order being entered by a court after the successful completion of a Veterans Treatment Court Program, behavioral health docket, or other specialty docket established pursuant to § 18.2-254.2 or 18.2-254.3 or Rule 1:25 of the Rules of Supreme Court of Virginia, such person may file a petition for a restricted license to be issued in accordance with the provisions of this subdivision without having to wait for the expiration of three years from the date of his last conviction, regardless of the date of such conviction. The court may order that a restricted license for such purposes be issued in accordance with the procedures of subsection E of § 18.2-271.1 if the court is satisfied from the evidence presented that (i) at the time of the previous convictions, the petitioner was addicted to or psychologically dependent on the use of alcohol or other drugs; (ii) at the time of the hearing on the petition, he is no longer addicted to or psychologically dependent on the use of alcohol or such other drugs; and (iii) the defendant does not constitute a threat to the safety and welfare of himself and others with regard to the driving of a motor vehicle. The court shall prohibit the person to whom a restricted license is issued from operating a motor vehicle that is not equipped with a functioning, certified ignition interlock system during all or any part of the term for which the restricted license is issued, in accordance with the provisions set forth in § 18.2-270.1. However, prior to acting on the petition, the court shall order that an evaluation of the person, to include an assessment of his degree of alcohol abuse and the appropriate treatment therefor, if any, be conducted by a Virginia Alcohol Safety Action Program and recommendations therefrom be submitted to the court, and the court shall give the recommendations such weight as the court deems appropriate. The Virginia Alcohol Safety Action Program shall, during the term of the restricted license, monitor the person's compliance with the terms of the restrictions imposed by the court. Any violation of the restrictions shall be reported to the court, and the court may modify the restrictions or revoke the license.

The ignition interlock system installation requirement under subdivisions 1, 2, and 3 need only be satisfied once as to any single revocation under subsection B for any person seeking restoration under subdivision 1, 2, or 3 following the granting of a restricted license under any such subdivision.

D. Any person convicted of driving a motor vehicle or any self-propelled machinery or equipment (i) while his license is revoked pursuant to subsection A or B or (ii) in violation of the terms of a restricted license issued pursuant to subsection C shall, provided such revocation was based on at least one conviction for an offense committed after July 1, 1999, be punished as follows:

1. If such driving does not of itself endanger the life, limb, or property of another, such person is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor punishable by a mandatory minimum term of confinement in jail of 10 days except in cases wherein such operation is necessitated in situations of apparent extreme emergency that require such operation to save life or limb, the sentence, or any part thereof, may be suspended.

2. a. If such driving (i) of itself endangers the life, limb, or property of another or (ii) takes place while such person is in violation of § 18.2-36.1, 18.2-51.4, or 18.2-266, subsection A of § 46.2-341.24, or a substantially similar law or ordinance of another jurisdiction, irrespective of whether the driving of itself endangers the life, limb, or property of another and the person has been previously convicted of a violation of § 18.2-36.1, 18.2-51.4, or 18.2-266, subsection A of § 46.2-341.24, or a substantially similar local ordinance, or law of another jurisdiction, such person is guilty of a felony punishable by confinement in a state correctional facility for not less than one year nor more than five years, one year of which shall be a mandatory minimum term of confinement or, in the discretion of the jury or the court trying the case without a jury, by mandatory minimum confinement in jail for a period of 12 months and no portion of such sentence shall be suspended or run concurrently with any other sentence.

b. However, in cases wherein such operation is necessitated in situations of apparent extreme emergency that require such operation to save life or limb, the sentence, or any part thereof, may be suspended.

3. If any such offense of driving is a second or subsequent violation, such person shall be punished as provided in subdivision 2, irrespective of whether the offense, of itself, endangers the life, limb, or property of another.

E. Notwithstanding the provisions of subdivisions D 2 and 3, following conviction and prior to imposition of sentence with the consent of the defendant, the court may order the defendant to be evaluated for and to participate in the community corrections alternative program pursuant to § 19.2-316.4.

F. Any period of driver's license revocation imposed pursuant to this section shall not begin to expire until the person convicted has surrendered his license to the court or to the Department of Motor Vehicles.

G. Nothing in this section shall prohibit a person from operating any farm tractor on the highways when it is necessary to move the tractor from one tract of land used for agricultural purposes to another such tract of land when the distance between the tracts is no more than five miles.

H. Any person who operates a motor vehicle or any self-propelled machinery or equipment (i) while his license is revoked pursuant to subsection A or B or (ii) in violation of the terms of a restricted license issued pursuant to subsection C, where the provisions of subsection D do not apply, is guilty of a violation of § 18.2-272.

Code 1950, § 46-417; 1958, c. 541, § 46.1-421; 1960, c. 364; 1964, c. 194; 1968, c. 561; 1976, cc. 359, 612, 691; 1983, c. 504; 1984, cc. 658, 673, 780; 1987, c. 409; 1989, cc. 705, 727; 1990, c. 949; 1994, c. 573; 1995, c. 486; 1997, cc. 691, 706; 1999, cc. 945, 987; 2000, cc. 243, 956, 958, 959, 980, 982, 985; 2001, c. 739; 2004, cc. 461, 937, 951; 2013, cc. 415, 655; 2016, c. 230; 2019, c. 618; 2024, cc. 552, 568; 2026, c. 1112.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 64 cases (17 in the last 5 years), 1994–2026 · leading case: Jasper v. Commonwealth, 644 S.E.2d 406 (Va. Ct. App. 2007).
Jasper v. Commonwealth, 644 S.E.2d 406 (Va. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 2× “ANALYSIS Appellant’s conviction for violating Code § 46.2-391, as charged in the indictment, required proof, inter alia, that appellant committed the act of driving at issue “after his driver’s license or privilege to drive had been revoked based on a conviction of driving while…”
Eric Maurice Smith v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 604 S.E.2d 108 (Va. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 18× “In a bench trial, Eric Maurice Smith (appellant) was convicted of driving on a revoked operator’s license pursuant to Code § 46.2-391. Appellant contends that the evidence was insufficient to prove that his operator’s license was revoked and that he had notice of that revocation…”
George E. Boone, a/k/a George Edward Boone, Jr. v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 758 S.E.2d 72 (Va. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 2× “The appellant was prosecuted for violating Code § 46.2-391, “Revocation of license for multiple convictions of driving while intoxicated.”
Corbin v. Commonwealth, 604 S.E.2d 111 (Va. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 2× “2-271 are self-executing, the provisions of Code § 46.2-391 addressing the Commissioner's duty to revoke a license are not relevant to the resolution of these issues.”
Salama v. Commonwealth, 45 Va. Cir. 446 (Fairfax Cir. Ct. 1998). · cites it 41× “2-360 is clear that a person declared to be an habitual offender, based wholly or in part on the offense of driving under the influence, is entitled to credit for any period her license was administratively revoked under Va. Code § 46.2-391 prior to the habitual offender…”
Payne v. Com., 674 S.E.2d 835 (Va. 2009). “The driver's license of any person convicted under this section shall be revoked pursuant to subsection B of § 46.2-391. Code § 18.2-33, entitled "Felony homicide defined; punishment," provides as follows: The killing of one accidentally, contrary to the intention of the…”
George Halcott Norman, III v. Commonwealth, 587 S.E.2d 742 (Va. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 6× “An order dated May 7, 2001, signed by Norman and issued by the Department of Motor Vehicles, stating that Norman, having "been adjudicated/determined to be an habitual offender," sought "a restricted license after having been declared an habitual offender or having had [his]…”
Sayler v. Commonwealth, 71 Va. Cir. 258 (Albemarle Cir. Ct. 2006). · cites it 26× “As a result, the Commissioner of the Department of Motor Vehicles (“DMV”) issued an order to revoke Petitioner’s driver’s license pursuant to Va. Code § 46.2-391. *259 In November 2005, Petitioner filed a petition to review the suspension of his driving'privileges and modify the…”
Commonwealth of Virginia v. James Daniel Murphy (Va. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 58× “2-357 and Va. Code § 46.2-391 arising out of the same driving behavior.”
Nicholas Eugene Glover v. Commonwealth of Virginia (Va. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 49× “-4- Here, relying on Barden, appellant argues that the evidence was insufficient to prove that his license was revoked because, under Code § 46.2-391, his “period of revocation expired on August 24, 2017, five years from the date of his conviction for manslaughter.”
Barry Eugene Lawson v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 734 S.E.2d 714 (Va. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 4× “2-270, as well as driving while intoxicated while his driver’s license was revoked for two or more prior driving while intoxicated offenses, in violation of Code § 46.2-391 (D). He was subsequently indicted on each of those offenses.”
Bednar v. Commonwealth, 60 Va. Cir. 255 (2002). · cites it 15× “Bednar claims that the three-year revocation is manifestly unjust as it is contrary to the court’s order and not based upon a conviction for a second or subsequent offense as required under Virginia Code § 46.2-391. The facts of the present matter are not in dispute.”
— Va. Code Ann. § 46.2-391(A) — 10 cases
Salama v. Commonwealth, 45 Va. Cir. 446 (Fairfax Cir. Ct. 1998). “2-360 is clear that a person declared to be an habitual offender, based wholly or in part on the offense of driving under the influence, is entitled to credit for any period her license was administratively revoked under Va. Code § 46.2-391 prior to the habitual offender…”
Bednar v. Commonwealth, 60 Va. Cir. 255 (2002). “Bednar claims that the three-year revocation is manifestly unjust as it is contrary to the court’s order and not based upon a conviction for a second or subsequent offense as required under Virginia Code § 46.2-391. The facts of the present matter are not in dispute.”
— Va. Code Ann. § 46.2-391(A)(ii) — 1 case
Bednar v. Commonwealth, 60 Va. Cir. 255 (2002). “Bednar claims that the three-year revocation is manifestly unjust as it is contrary to the court’s order and not based upon a conviction for a second or subsequent offense as required under Virginia Code § 46.2-391. The facts of the present matter are not in dispute.”
— Va. Code Ann. § 46.2-391(B) — 8 cases
George Halcott Norman, III v. Commonwealth, 587 S.E.2d 742 (Va. Ct. App. 2003). “An order dated May 7, 2001, signed by Norman and issued by the Department of Motor Vehicles, stating that Norman, having "been adjudicated/determined to be an habitual offender," sought "a restricted license after having been declared an habitual offender or having had [his]…”
Norman v. Commonwealth, 579 S.E.2d 699 (Va. Ct. App. 2003).
Nicholas Eugene Glover v. Commonwealth of Virginia (Va. Ct. App. 2025). “-4- Here, relying on Barden, appellant argues that the evidence was insufficient to prove that his license was revoked because, under Code § 46.2-391, his “period of revocation expired on August 24, 2017, five years from the date of his conviction for manslaughter.”
Salama v. Commonwealth, 45 Va. Cir. 446 (Fairfax Cir. Ct. 1998). “2-360 is clear that a person declared to be an habitual offender, based wholly or in part on the offense of driving under the influence, is entitled to credit for any period her license was administratively revoked under Va. Code § 46.2-391 prior to the habitual offender…”
Earhart v. Holcomb, 36 Va. Cir. 72 (Richmond County Cir. Ct. 1995).
— Va. Code Ann. § 46.2-391(C) — 1 case
Nicholas Eugene Glover v. Commonwealth of Virginia (Va. Ct. App. 2025). “-4- Here, relying on Barden, appellant argues that the evidence was insufficient to prove that his license was revoked because, under Code § 46.2-391, his “period of revocation expired on August 24, 2017, five years from the date of his conviction for manslaughter.”
— Va. Code Ann. § 46.2-391(C)(1) — 1 case
Nicholas Eugene Glover v. Commonwealth of Virginia (Va. Ct. App. 2025). “-4- Here, relying on Barden, appellant argues that the evidence was insufficient to prove that his license was revoked because, under Code § 46.2-391, his “period of revocation expired on August 24, 2017, five years from the date of his conviction for manslaughter.”
— Va. Code Ann. § 46.2-391(D) — 6 cases
Barry Eugene Lawson v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 734 S.E.2d 714 (Va. Ct. App. 2012). “2-270, as well as driving while intoxicated while his driver’s license was revoked for two or more prior driving while intoxicated offenses, in violation of Code § 46.2-391 (D). He was subsequently indicted on each of those offenses.”
Nicholas Eugene Glover v. Commonwealth of Virginia (Va. Ct. App. 2025). “-4- Here, relying on Barden, appellant argues that the evidence was insufficient to prove that his license was revoked because, under Code § 46.2-391, his “period of revocation expired on August 24, 2017, five years from the date of his conviction for manslaughter.”
— Va. Code Ann. § 46.2-391(D)(1) — 4 cases
Commonwealth of Virginia v. James Daniel Murphy (Va. Ct. App. 2021). “2-357 and Va. Code § 46.2-391 arising out of the same driving behavior.”
Nicholas Eugene Glover v. Commonwealth of Virginia (Va. Ct. App. 2025). “-4- Here, relying on Barden, appellant argues that the evidence was insufficient to prove that his license was revoked because, under Code § 46.2-391, his “period of revocation expired on August 24, 2017, five years from the date of his conviction for manslaughter.”
— Va. Code Ann. § 46.2-391(D)(2) — 5 cases
— Va. Code Ann. § 46.2-391(D)(2)(a) — 4 cases
— Va. Code Ann. § 46.2-391(D)(2)(a)(i) — 2 cases
— Va. Code Ann. § 46.2-391(D)(2)(a)(ii) — 6 cases
— Va. Code Ann. § 46.2-391(D)(3) — 4 cases
Nicholas Eugene Glover v. Commonwealth of Virginia (Va. Ct. App. 2025). “-4- Here, relying on Barden, appellant argues that the evidence was insufficient to prove that his license was revoked because, under Code § 46.2-391, his “period of revocation expired on August 24, 2017, five years from the date of his conviction for manslaughter.”
— Va. Code Ann. § 46.2-391(H) — 1 case
— Va. Code Ann. § 46.2-391(b) — 1 case
Richard Baylor Moriarty v. CW, DMV (Va. Ct. App. 2000).
— Va. Code Ann. § 46.2-391(c) — 1 case
Commonwealth v. Jacobson, 36 Va. Cir. 438 (Arlington Cir. Ct. 1995).
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.