Virginia Code

Va. Code Ann. § 46.2-882 (2026)

Determining speed with various devices; certificate as to accuracy of device; arrest without warrant

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section VA-LISlaw.lis.virginia.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

The speed of any motor vehicle may be determined by the use of (i) a laser speed determination device, (ii) radar, (iii) a microcomputer device that is physically connected to an odometer cable and both measures and records distance traveled and elapsed time to determine the average speed of a motor vehicle, or (iv) a microcomputer device that is located aboard an airplane or helicopter and measures and records distance traveled and elapsed time to determine the average speed of a motor vehicle being operated on highways within the Interstate System of highways as defined in § 33.2-100. The speed of motor vehicles may be determined by the use of a photo speed monitoring device as authorized in § 46.2-882.1. The results of such determinations shall be accepted as prima facie evidence of the speed of such motor vehicle in any court or legal proceeding where the speed of the motor vehicle is at issue.

In any court or legal proceeding in which any question arises about the calibration or accuracy of any laser speed determination device, radar, microcomputer device, or photo speed monitoring device as described in this section used to determine the speed of any motor vehicle, a certificate, or a true copy thereof, showing the calibration or accuracy of (a) the speedometer of any vehicle, (b) any tuning fork employed in calibrating or testing the radar or other speed determination device, or (c) any other method employed in calibrating or testing any laser speed determination device or photo speed monitoring device, and when and by whom the calibration was made, shall be admissible as evidence of the facts therein stated. No calibration or testing of any device other than a photo speed monitoring device shall be valid for longer than six months. No calibration or testing of a photo speed monitoring device shall be valid for longer than 12 months.

The driver of any such motor vehicle may be arrested without a warrant under this section if the arresting officer is in uniform and displays his badge of authority and if the officer has observed the registration of the speed of such motor vehicle by the laser speed determination device, radar, or microcomputer device as described in this section, or has received a radio message from the officer who observed the speed of the motor vehicle registered by the laser speed determination device, radar, or microcomputer device as described in this section. However, in case of an arrest based on such a message, such radio message shall have been dispatched immediately after the speed of the motor vehicle was registered and furnished the license number or other positive identification of the vehicle and the registered speed to the arresting officer.

Neither State Police officers nor local law-enforcement officers shall use laser speed determination devices or radar, as described herein in airplanes or helicopters for the purpose of determining the speed of motor vehicles.

State Police officers may use laser speed determination devices, radar, and/or microcomputer devices as described in this section. All localities may use radar and laser speed determination devices to measure speed. State Police officers and local law-enforcement may use photo speed monitoring devices to measure speed as authorized in § 46.2-882.1. The Cities of Alexandria, Fairfax, Falls Church, Manassas, and Manassas Park and the Counties of Arlington, Fairfax, Loudoun, and Prince William and towns within such counties may use microcomputer devices as described in this section.

The Division of Purchases and Supply, pursuant to § 2.2-1112, shall determine the proper equipment used to determine the speed of motor vehicles and shall advise the respective law-enforcement officials of the same. Police chiefs and sheriffs shall ensure that all such equipment and devices purchased on or after July 1, 1986, meet or exceed the standards established by the Division.

Code 1950, § 46-215.2; 1954, c. 313; 1956, c. 216; 1958, c. 541, § 46.1-198; 1966, c. 585; 1968, c. 497; 1974, c. 554; 1984, c. 357; 1986, c. 530; 1988, c. 712; 1989, c. 727; 1990, cc. 691, 974; 1991, c. 345; 1994, c. 734; 1997, c. 33; 1998, c. 423; 1999, cc. 693, 694, 698, 724, 729, 733; 2000, cc. 354, 357, 365; 2002, c. 109; 2003, cc. 608, 965; 2006, c. 930; 2007, c. 231; 2020, c. 1232.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 19 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1990–2024 · leading case: Jeffrey D. Wells v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 781 S.E.2d 362 (Va. Ct. App. 2016).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Jeffrey D. Wells v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 781 S.E.2d 362 (Va. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 12× “To that end, Code § 46.2-882 provides several methods by which the Commonwealth may prove the speed of a motor vehicle.”

Myatt v. Commonwealth, 397 S.E.2d 275 (Va. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 18× “Finally, he would also have testified that the audio dopler from the radar should not have remained constant as the police officer testified that it did, but should have dropped off as the appellant's vehicle got closer, unless the radar was reading a vehicle further away, such…”

Gray v. Commonwealth, 446 S.E.2d 480 (Va. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 16× “The trial judge asked Gray’s counsel whether Code § 46.2-882 required proof of both the tuning fork accuracy and the speedometer accuracy to prove accuracy of the radar device.”

Untiedt v. Commonwealth, 447 S.E.2d 537 (Va. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 10× “Specifically, he contends that the certificate of tuning fork accuracy produced by the Commonwealth at trial was not a true copy of the original certificate in the custody of the state police within the meaning of Code § 46.2-882. For the reasons that follow, we agree and…”

State v. Williamson, 166 P.3d 387 (Idaho Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 2× “§ 40-14-17 (evidence of speed based on a laser detection device is considered scientifically reliable and admissible); Va.Code Ann. § 46.2-882 (speed of any motor vehicle may be determined by the use of a laser speed determination device); State v.”

Scafetta v. Arlington Cnty., 414 S.E.2d 438 (Va. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 2× “Code § 46.2-882. The Division of Purchases and *649 Supply has specified that radar units used in the Commonwealth must have type acceptance approval from the FCC.”

Scafetta v. Arlington Cnty., 425 S.E.2d 807 (Va. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 2× “Code § 46.2-882. While this prima facie evidence may be rebutted by showing that the radar device used is not approved by the Federal Communications Commission, it is not rebutted merely by showing that the devise used is not the same as one with a similar identification number…”

Shannon Michael Breitbach v. Commonwealth of VA, 546 S.E.2d 764 (Va. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 2× “2-882, Breitbach contends that because Officer Robertson was acting as a Town of Louisa officer and wearing a Town of Louisa uniform and badge, he was authorized to operate radar and to make consequent arrests for speeding only within the one-mile radius from the Town of…”

United States v. Wornom, 754 F. Supp. 517 (W.D. Va. 1991). “The court’s opinion addresses § 46.2-882 prior to the 1990 amendment of that section.”

Commonwealth v. Fagin, 61 Va. Cir. 428 (2003). · cites it 20× “First, Defendant argues that the Commonwealth has not established that the population of the City of Charlottesville is between 40,000 and 50,000, and thus the Commonwealth has failed to establish that the City was authorized to use a Laser pursuant to Va. Code § 46.2-882…”

Ruffin v. Clarke (E.D. Va. 2021). · cites it 9× “Claims Two and Three In Claims Two and Three, Ruffin alleges the trial court erred in its application of Virginia Code § 46.2-882, which addresses permissible means of determining the speed of a vehicle.”

Monae Chanta Savage, s/k/a Mona Chanta Savage v. Commonwealth of Virginia (Va. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 12× “for determining speed listed in Code § 46.2-882. 1 The trial court denied the motion.”

Show all 19 citing cases →

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.