Search & Seizure – Defendant wasn’t entitled to copy of search warrant

Where a man argued the evidence obtained from the search should have been suppressed because the officers violated Code § 19.2-56(B) by not giving him a copy of the search warrant and its supporting affidavit, this argument was rejected. The statute only applies to search warrants for a “place of abode” and, here, the defendant was not at his “place of abode.”

Background

After an undercover law-enforcement officer “performed a controlled drug transaction” with Demeatric Blow at a clothing store, officers obtained an arrest warrant for Blow and a search warrant for the store. Upon executing the warrant, officers discovered more marijuana and firearms inside the store.

On appeal, Blow contended that the evidence obtained from the search should have been suppressed because the officers violated Code § 19.2-56(B) by not giving him a copy of the search warrant and its supporting affidavit. The Court of Appeals disagreed.

Analysis

Code § 19.2-56(B) governs the execution of certain search warrants and imposes specific limitations on said execution. The first paragraph prohibits the use of a no-knock search warrant for any “place of abode” and also requires law-enforcement officers to be identifiable when executing a search warrant for a “place of abode.”

The second paragraph requires law-enforcement officers executing “the search warrant” to provide the owner, or other adult occupant, of the searched place with a copy of “the search warrant” and supporting affidavit, but does not make any direct reference to a search warrant for a “place of abode.” The third paragraph provides that when law-enforcement officers execute a search warrant for a “place of abode,” they must do so between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., unless otherwise authorized.

The fourth paragraph requires law-enforcement officers to make reasonable efforts to obtain judicial authorization if they wish to execute “the warrant” at another time, but again, there is no direct reference to a “place of abode.” Finally, the fifth paragraph provides that if law-enforcement officers violate these provisions, the Commonwealth may not admit the results of the search into evidence in any prosecution.

As the Court of Appeals correctly noted, only the first and third paragraphs of Code § 19.2-56(B) specifically reference a search warrant for a “place of abode,” while the second and fourth paragraphs refer to either “the search warrant” or “the warrant.” The definite article “the” is meant to particularize the noun it follows by relating it to something specific, whereas indefinite articles like “a” refer to something more generally.

Thus, reading the statute as a whole, the deliberate use of the definite article “the” in the second paragraph indicates that the General Assembly intended for “the search warrant” to refer back to the specific search warrant described in the first paragraph.

Because “the search warrant” in the first paragraph refers to a search warrant for a “place of abode,” it becomes clear that the requirement that officers provide a copy of “the search warrant” as described in the second paragraph only applies to a search warrant for a “place of abode.” Therefore, the Court of Appeals was correct in concluding that the provision in the second paragraph does not apply to all search warrants generally, and only applies to search warrants for a “place of abode.”

This court has previously cautioned against overusing tools of grammatical construction when interpreting a statute. However, such use is appropriate here for two reasons. First, “proper grammatical effect will be given to the arrangement of words in a sentence of a statute” so long as it does not render a statute ambiguous. Here, the use of the definite article “the” in the second and fourth paragraphs of Code § 19.2-56(B) does not render the statute ambiguous, but instead clarifies that the entirety of the statute only applies to search warrants for a “place of abode.”

Second, this court has routinely used the particular placement of definite and indefinite articles as a means of statutory interpretation. Interpreting Code § 19.2-56(B) in light of its usage of definite and indefinite articles continues in this tradition, and thus the Court of Appeals was correct in concluding that “the search warrant” in the second paragraph of Code § 19.2-56(B) refers to the search warrant for a “place of abode” in the first paragraph.

Affirmed.

Blow v. Commonwealth, Record No. 250365, April 16, 2026 (Fulton III). From the Court of Appeals of Virginia. VLW 026-6-020. 7 pp.

Full-Text Opinion

VLW 026-6-020
Virginia Lawyers Weekly