Virginia
Virginia GPS Tracking Laws: Is It Legal to Put a Tracker on a Car? (2026)
Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited June 17, 2026). · Law checked current as of August 9, 2026. How we verify our legal content
You found a small device zip-tied behind your bumper. Or maybe you are wondering whether you can legally put a tracker on a car to confirm a suspicion. Virginia has a specific criminal statute for exactly this situation, and it turns on one unusual element: deception.
Under Va. Code 18.2-60.5, it is a Class 1 misdemeanor to install or place an electronic tracking device through intentionally deceptive means and without consent, then use that device to track a person. That phrasing matters. Virginia's law is narrower than the tracking statutes in many other states, and the exceptions, especially the 2022 limits on private investigators, change who can and cannot lawfully follow your movements.
This guide explains when GPS tracking is legal in Virginia, what counts as deceptive installation, how the stalking statute fills the gaps, what penalties apply, and how victims can sue for money damages.
Is It Legal to Put a GPS Tracker on a Car in Virginia?
It depends on whose car it is and how you place the device. Tracking a vehicle you own is generally legal. Secretly sneaking a tracker onto someone else's car to follow them is generally a crime.
Virginia's answer comes from Va. Code 18.2-60.5, titled "Unauthorized use of electronic tracking device." The statute was enacted in 2013, expanded in 2020, and tightened again in 2022 to address abuse of the private investigator exception.
The core rule: you may not install or place an electronic tracking device through intentionally deceptive means and without consent, and then use that device to track the location of any person. Violations are Class 1 misdemeanors.
So a husband who hides a GPS unit in his wife's separately owned car, a rejected suitor who slips an AirTag into a target's purse, or a business rival who magnets a tracker under a competitor's truck are all squarely inside the criminal statute.
Virginia's Tracking Law and the "Deceptive Means" Element (Va. Code 18.2-60.5)
Most state tracking statutes punish installing a device "without consent," full stop. Virginia adds a second requirement: the installation must happen "through intentionally deceptive means."
That extra element is a meaningful limit. Tracking that is open and disclosed, even if the tracked person never formally consented, falls outside the crime because nothing about the installation was deceptive. A delivery company that tells drivers their vans carry GPS, or a parent who tells a teenager the family car has a tracker, is not hiding anything.
Deception is what prosecutors look for. Hiding a device under a bumper, disguising it as something innocent, lying about what a gadget does, or planting it while pretending to do something else all supply the deceptive-means element.
Subsection C defines an "electronic tracking device" as "an electronic or mechanical device that permits a person to remotely determine or track the position and movement of another person." That language is broad enough to cover dedicated hardwired GPS units, battery trackers, and consumer item finders like Apple AirTags and Tile tags when they are used to follow a person.
One more piece of the puzzle: GPS trackers do not intercept conversations, so Virginia's wiretap statutes and its recording consent rules do not apply to silent location tracking. Section 18.2-60.5 and the stalking law do the work instead.
Who Can Legally Track a Vehicle in Virginia
Va. Code 18.2-60.5 lists specific groups whose tracking does not violate the statute:
- Law enforcement and the justice system. Police officers, judicial officers, probation and parole officers, and employees of the Department of Corrections acting within their official duties. Under United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012), the Supreme Court held that attaching a GPS device to a vehicle and using it to monitor the vehicle's movements is a Fourth Amendment search.
- Parents and guardians of minors. A parent or legal guardian may track their minor child. The exception also reaches tracking a caretaker the parent authorized, but only while the minor is in that person's sole care.
- Representatives of vulnerable adults. A legally authorized representative of a vulnerable adult, as that term is defined in Va. Code 18.2-369, may use a tracking device for that adult's protection.
- Vehicle owners. Owners of fleet vehicles, rental car companies, and motor vehicle dealers may track vehicles they own. This is the exception that covers most business tracking.
- Communications providers. Electronic communications providers, when location tracking is disclosed in their terms of service.
- Registered private investigators, with new limits. A PI registered under Virginia law may place a tracker in the normal course of business with the consent of the owner of the property the device is placed on. Since the 2022 amendments (Chapters 259 and 642), this exception disappears if the PI is working for a client who is subject to a protective order under one of the sections the statute lists, Va. Code 16.1-253, 16.1-253.1, 16.1-253.4, 16.1-279.1, 19.2-152.8, 19.2-152.9, or 19.2-152.10, or subsection B of 20-103, or if the PI knows or reasonably should know the client is seeking the tracking to help commit a crime.
The 2022 PI changes were a direct response to abusers hiring investigators to locate protected victims. A spouse under a protective order can no longer launder illegal tracking through a licensed investigator.
Can My Employer Track My Car in Virginia?
If the vehicle belongs to your employer, yes. The fleet vehicle exception lets a company track vehicles it owns, and disclosed tracking of a company car does not involve deceptive means in the first place. Virginia has no statute requiring employers to give written notice of GPS on company vehicles, though most do as a matter of policy.
Your personal vehicle is different. An employer who secretly plants a tracker on an employee's privately owned car gets no exception, and a hidden installation supplies the deception element. That conduct can violate 18.2-60.5 like anyone else's secret tracking.
Workplace monitoring questions often overlap with camera rules. Our guide to surveillance camera laws covers when video monitoring is legal at work and at home.
AirTags and Item Trackers in Virginia
Virginia's statute does not care what brand or type of device is used. An AirTag, Tile, Samsung SmartTag, or any Bluetooth item finder counts as an electronic tracking device when it is used to track a person's location.
Dropping an AirTag into someone's bag or taping one inside a wheel well is exactly the kind of concealed, deceptive placement the statute targets. The same conduct, repeated as part of following someone who is placed in fear, can also support a stalking charge under Va. Code 18.2-60.3.
Using your own AirTag to find your own keys, luggage, or car is legal. The crime is using a tracker, deceptively planted and without consent, to follow another person.
Penalties for Illegal GPS Tracking in Virginia
| Offense | Classification | Penalty |
|---|---|---|
| Unauthorized tracking device use (Va. Code 18.2-60.5) | Class 1 misdemeanor | Up to 12 months in jail, fine up to $2,500, or both |
| Stalking (Va. Code 18.2-60.3) | Class 1 misdemeanor | Up to 12 months in jail, fine up to $2,500, or both |
| Stalking, second conviction within 5 years of a prior stalking conviction | Class 6 felony | 1 to 5 years in prison (or up to 12 months and a $2,500 fine at the court's or jury's discretion) |
| Federal stalking via electronic monitoring (18 U.S.C. 2261A) | Federal felony | Up to 5 years in federal prison, more if the victim is injured |
Class 1 misdemeanor penalties come from Va. Code 18.2-11. Stalking convictions also trigger a mandatory protective order prohibiting contact with the victim.
The federal statute, 18 U.S.C. 2261A, reaches anyone who uses an electronic communication system or electronic monitoring to engage in a course of conduct that places a victim in fear or causes substantial emotional distress, with interstate elements. Cross-state tracking cases can be charged federally.
Suing Over Illegal Tracking: Va. Code 8.01-42.3
Virginia gives stalking victims a dedicated civil claim. Under Va. Code 8.01-42.3, a victim of stalking conduct described in 18.2-60.3 may sue the stalker for compensatory damages and the costs of bringing the action, plus punitive damages if compensatory damages are awarded. A criminal conviction is not required to bring the civil action.
This statute matters more in Virginia than its equivalents do elsewhere. Virginia courts do not recognize a general common-law tort for intrusion upon seclusion, so a victim of secret GPS tracking usually cannot bring the broad "invasion of privacy" lawsuit available in many other states. The statutory route under 8.01-42.3, plus claims like trespass to chattels for physically attaching a device to a car, carry the load instead.
Victims can also petition for a protective order. Our Virginia restraining order guide explains the process, and stalking under 18.2-60.3 is qualifying conduct.
What to Do If You Find a Tracker on Your Car
- Do not destroy it. The device is evidence, and it may carry fingerprints, a serial number, or account data that identifies who planted it.
- Photograph it in place. Capture where and how it was attached before anyone moves it.
- Call local police or the sheriff's office. Report a suspected violation of Va. Code 18.2-60.5 and ask that the device be collected as evidence. If you feel you are in danger, say so.
- Think about who and why. If you suspect a current or former partner, contact the Virginia Family Violence and Sexual Assault Hotline at 1-800-838-8238 and ask about safety planning before confronting anyone.
- Consider a protective order. GPS-based following that places you in fear can qualify as stalking, which supports a protective order petition.
- Talk to a lawyer about a civil claim. Compensatory damages, punitive damages, and the costs of bringing the action may be available under 8.01-42.3.
If the tracker is an AirTag, an iPhone will alert you that an unknown AirTag is traveling with you, and Android users can scan with Google's unknown tracker alerts. Either platform can make the tag play a sound to help you find it.
For how Virginia compares to the rest of the country, see our 50-state hub: GPS Tracking Laws by State.
Sources
- Va. Code 18.2-60.5, Unauthorized use of electronic tracking device (Virginia Law Portal)
- Va. Code 18.2-60.3, Stalking (Virginia Law Portal)
- Va. Code 8.01-42.3, Civil action for stalking (Virginia Law Portal)
- Va. Code 18.2-11, Punishment for conviction of misdemeanor (Virginia Law Portal)
- Va. Code 18.2-369, Abuse and neglect of vulnerable adults (Virginia Law Portal)
- 18 U.S.C. 2261A, Stalking (Cornell Legal Information Institute)
- United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012) (Cornell Legal Information Institute)
Disclaimer: This article is for general informational purposes only and is not legal advice. Laws change, and how they apply depends on your specific facts. If you found a tracker, are facing a charge, or fear for your safety, talk to a licensed Virginia attorney, and call 911 if you are in immediate danger.
More Virginia Laws
- Virginia Dashcam Laws
- Virginia Data Privacy Laws
- Virginia Drone Laws
- Virginia Employee Monitoring Laws
- Virginia Recording Laws
- Virginia Restraining Order Laws
Frequently Asked Questions
Is it illegal to put a GPS tracker on my spouse's car in Virginia?
If the car is titled to your spouse and you hide the device, you risk a Class 1 misdemeanor under Va. Code 18.2-60.5. The statute has no exception for spouses. If the vehicle is jointly owned, the analysis is murkier because you are placing a device on your own property, but using it to secretly track your spouse can still feed a stalking charge, and family courts take hidden tracking seriously in divorce and custody cases.
Can I put a GPS tracker on my teenager's car in Virginia?
Yes. Va. Code 18.2-60.5 expressly excepts a parent or legal guardian tracking their minor child. The exception also covers tracking a caretaker the parent authorized, but only while the minor is in that caretaker's sole care. Once your child turns 18, the parental exception ends.
Can a private investigator legally put a tracker on a car in Virginia?
Sometimes. A Virginia-registered PI can place a tracker in the normal course of business with the consent of the owner of the property the device goes on. After the 2022 amendments, the exception fails if the client is subject to one of the protective orders the statute enumerates, a list that covers the family abuse and stalking protective orders in Virginia law, or the PI knows or reasonably should know the client wants the tracking to help commit a crime.
Do police need a warrant to GPS track my car in Virginia?
In United States v. Jones (2012), the U.S. Supreme Court held that attaching a GPS device to a vehicle and monitoring its movements is a Fourth Amendment search. The Court did not decide whether that search was reasonable without a warrant, because the government had not raised that argument in the lower court. Virginia's statute separately exempts law enforcement officers acting in their official capacity from the state crime.
What is the penalty for illegal GPS tracking in Virginia?
Violating Va. Code 18.2-60.5 is a Class 1 misdemeanor, punishable by up to 12 months in jail and a fine of up to $2,500. If the tracking is part of conduct that places the victim in fear, it can be charged as stalking, which becomes a Class 6 felony for a second conviction within five years of a prior stalking conviction.
Can I sue someone for putting a tracker on my car in Virginia?
Yes, if the tracking amounts to stalking. Va. Code 8.01-42.3 lets stalking victims recover compensatory damages and the costs of bringing the action, plus punitive damages if compensatory damages are awarded, but not attorney fees. No criminal conviction is required. Because Virginia does not recognize a general common-law privacy intrusion tort, this statute is usually the main civil route.
Are AirTags illegal in Virginia?
Owning and using AirTags to find your own belongings is legal. Planting an AirTag on another person or their property through deceptive means to track them violates Va. Code 18.2-60.5, and repeated tracking that frightens the victim can be prosecuted as stalking under 18.2-60.3.
Does my employer have to tell me about GPS on a company car in Virginia?
No. Virginia has no statute requiring notice of GPS tracking on employer-owned vehicles, and the fleet vehicle exception in 18.2-60.5 covers tracking vehicles the company owns. Secretly tracking an employee's personal vehicle is a different matter and can violate the statute.
Updates
Corrected the description of United States v. Jones to the holding the Supreme Court actually reached: GPS attachment and monitoring is a search, with the warrant question left undecided.
Corrected the quoted statutory definition of "electronic tracking device" in Va. Code 18.2-60.5 and clarified that the private investigator exception is lost only when the client is subject to one of the protective orders the statute specifically enumerates.
Governing law re-checked for recent changes
Corrected the stalking felony escalation (a second conviction within five years, not a third, and with no protective-order trigger in the statute) and the civil-suit remedies under Va. Code 8.01-42.3 (compensatory/punitive damages and costs, not attorney fees) throughout the KeyTakeaways, penalty table, body text, and FAQ.
Governing law re-checked for recent changes
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources
The Law Behind This Article
This article rests on the statutory provisions below, held in our own legal record and retrieved from the official source. Tap a section to read the operative text.
Code of Virginia, Title 18.2: Crimes and Offenses Generally
§ 18.2-60.5Unauthorized use of electronic tracking device; penaltyIn forcecited in 3 of our articles
A. Any person who installs or places an electronic tracking device through intentionally deceptive means and without consent, or causes an electronic tracking device to be installed or placed through intentionally deceptive means and without consent, and uses such device to track the location of any person is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. B. The provisions of this section shall not apply to the installation, placement, or use of an electronic tracking device by: 1. A law-enforcement officer, judicial officer, probation or parole officer, or employee of the Department of Corrections when any such person is engaged in the lawful performance of official duties and in accordance with other state or federal law; 2. The parent or legal guardian of a minor when tracking (i) the minor or (ii) any person authorized by the parent or legal guardian as a caretaker of the minor at any time when the minor is under the person's sole care; 3. A legally authorized representative of a vulnerable adult, as defined in § 18.2-369; 4. The owner of fleet vehicles, when tracking such vehicles; 5.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at law.lis.virginia.gov
Also relied on in: Virginia Employee Monitoring Laws: Workplace Surveillance and Social Media (2026), GPS Tracking Laws by State: Is It Legal to Put a Tracker on a Car? (2026)
§ 18.2-60.3Stalking; penaltyIn forcecited in 2 of our articles
A. For purposes of this section: "Electronically transmitted communication" includes communication by telephone, computer, or other electronic device. "Family or household member" has the same meaning as provided in § 16.1-228. B. Any person, except a law-enforcement officer, as defined in § 9.1-101, and acting in the performance of his official duties, and a registered private investigator, as defined in § 9.1-138, who is regulated in accordance with § 9.1-139 and acting in the course of his legitimate business, who on more than one occasion engages in conduct, either in person or through any other means, including by mail, telephone, or an electronically transmitted communication, directed at another person with the intent to place, or when he knows or reasonably should know that the conduct places that other person in reasonable fear of death, criminal sexual assault, or bodily injury to that other person or to that other person's family or household member is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at law.lis.virginia.gov
Cited in 9 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- United States v. Saunders (Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces 2003, 59 M.J. 1)“…Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 13, § 1061-1062 (LEXIS through 2003); Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-60.3 (Michie, LEXIS through 2003 Reg. Sess.)…”
- Ascencio v. People (District Court, Virgin Islands 2010, 54 V.I. 769)“…7 .3A (2010) (course of conduct means “two or more acts”); Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-60.3 (2010) (stalking defined as prohibited…”
- Williams v. HMSHost at Washington Dulles International Airport (District Court, E.D. Virginia 2024)“…state anti-stalking laws, 18 U.S.C. § 2261A (Count 7) and Va. Code § 18.2-60.3 and Va. Code § 8.01-42.3 (Count 9), and…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Virginia Restraining Order Laws (2026): How to Get a Protective Order
§ 18.2-369Abuse and neglect of vulnerable adults; penaltiesIn force
A. It is unlawful for any responsible person to abuse or neglect any vulnerable adult. Any responsible person who abuses or neglects a vulnerable adult in violation of this section and the abuse or neglect does not result in serious bodily injury or disease to the vulnerable adult is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. Any responsible person who is convicted of a second or subsequent offense under this subsection is guilty of a Class 6 felony. B. Any responsible person who abuses or neglects a vulnerable adult in violation of this section and the abuse or neglect results in serious bodily injury or disease to the vulnerable adult is guilty of a Class 4 felony. Any responsible person who abuses or neglects a vulnerable adult in violation of this section and the abuse or neglect results in the death of the vulnerable adult is guilty of a Class 3 felony. C.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at law.lis.virginia.gov
§ 18.2-11Punishment for conviction of misdemeanorIn forcecited in 16 of our articles
The authorized punishments for conviction of a misdemeanor are: (a) For Class 1 misdemeanors, confinement in jail for not more than twelve months and a fine of not more than $2,500, either or both. (b) For Class 2 misdemeanors, confinement in jail for not more than six months and a fine of not more than $1,000, either or both. (c) For Class 3 misdemeanors, a fine of not more than $500. (d) For Class 4 misdemeanors, a fine of not more than $250. For a misdemeanor offense prohibiting proximity to children as described in subsection A of § 18.2-370.2, the sentencing court is authorized to impose the punishment set forth in subsection B of that section in addition to any other penalty provided by law.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at law.lis.virginia.gov
Cited in 27 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Commonwealth v. White (Virginia Circuit Court 2002, 58 Va. Cir. 154)“…meanors carry a possible sentence of twelve months in jail. Va. Code § 18.2-11(a). Upon discovery of this violation…”
- Virginia v. Moore (Supreme Court of the United States 2008, 553 U.S. 164)“…le under Virginia law by a year in jail and a $2,500 fine, Va. Code Ann. §§18.2-11 (Lexis 2004), 18.2-272 (Supp. 2007), 4…”
- Richard Weidman v. Exxon Mobil Corporation (Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit 2015, 776 F.3d 214)“…months and a fine of not more than $2,500, either or both.” Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-11(a).…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Virginia Smart Glasses Recording Laws, Virginia Recording Laws (2026): One-Party Consent Rules, Virginia Age of Consent Laws: Statutes, Penalties and Reporting
Code of Virginia, Title 8.01: Civil Remedies and Procedure
§ 8.01-42.3Civil action for stalkingIn force
A. A victim has a civil cause of action against an individual who engaged in conduct that is prohibited under § 18.2-60.3, whether or not the individual has been charged or convicted for the alleged violation, for the compensatory damages incurred by the victim as a result of that conduct, in addition to the costs for bringing the action. If compensatory damages are awarded, a victim may also be awarded punitive damages. B. As used in this section: "Compensatory damages" includes damages for all of the defendant's acts prohibited by § 18.2-60.3. "Victim" means a person who, because of the conduct of the defendant that is prohibited under § 18.2-60.3, was placed in reasonable fear of death, criminal sexual assault, or bodily injury to himself or to a minor child of whom the person is a parent or legal guardian. C. No action shall be commenced under this section more than two years after the most recent conduct prohibited under § 18.2-60.3.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at law.lis.virginia.gov
Cited in 4 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Williams v. HMSHOST at Washington Dulles International Airport (District Court, E.D. Virginia 2024)“…assert[]” his claim for damages by alleging a violation of Va. Code § 8.01-42.3. Compl. 4 92. Va. Code § 8.01-42.3 p…”
- Preston (District Court, W.D. Virginia 2025)“…r as described under the statute and brought a claim under Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-42.3. Williams responds that Preston faile…”
- Gill v. Food Lion LLC (District Court, W.D. Virginia 2025)“…ction against an individual who has engaged in [stalking].” Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-42.3(A). But even though Gill’s claim is re…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
United States Code Title 18
§ 2261AStalkingIn forcecited in 56 of our articles
Whoever— travels in interstate or foreign commerce or is present within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or enters or leaves Indian country, with the intent to kill, injure, harass, intimidate, or place under surveillance with intent to kill, injure, harass, or intimidate another person, and in the course of, or as a result of, such travel or presence engages in conduct that— places that person in reasonable fear of the death of, or serious bodily injury to— that person; an immediate family member (as defined in section 115) of that person; a spouse or intimate partner of that person; or the pet, service animal, emotional support animal, or horse of that person; or causes, attempts to cause, or would be reasonably expected to cause substantial emotional distress to a person described in clause (i), (ii), or (iii) of subparagraph (A); or with the intent to kill, injure, harass, intimidate, or place under surveillance with intent to kill, injure, harass, or intimidate another person, uses the mail, any interactive computer service or electronic communication service or electronic communication system of interstate commerce, or any other…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 350 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Federal appeals courts have construed and upheld Section 2261A. United States v. Walker (2011) read in the course of, or as a result of such travel disjunctively, so pre-travel threats plus resulting fear sufficed. United States v. Amy Gonzalez (2018) held it neither overbroad nor vague and no First Amendment violation as applied.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- United States v. Walker (Court of Appeals for the First Circuit 2011, 665 F.3d 212)✓After emailing threats to his estranged wife, the defendant flew from Michigan to Puerto Rico and was arrested on arrival. The court read the disjunctive phrase in 2261A(1) to cover travel that itself places the target in reasonable fear, and upheld the stalking conviction.
- United States v. Amy Gonzalez (Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 2018, 905 F.3d 165)✓Relatives waged a years-long campaign against a mother that ended in a courthouse shooting. The court held 2261A is neither overbroad nor vague because it reaches harassing conduct, and that the mental states it lists are alternative means, not elements; convictions affirmed.
- United States v. Wills (Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit 2003, 346 F.3d 476)✓A burglary suspect pursued the witness who identified him at a preliminary hearing; the witness later died. The court held the evidence met each element of 2261A: travel from D.C. to Virginia, intent to harm or harass, and reasonable fear of death; conviction affirmed.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Federal Sexting Laws: Legal Consequences and Penalties, Alabama GPS Tracking Laws: Is It Legal to Put a Tracker on a Car? (2026), Alaska GPS Tracking Laws: Is It Legal to Put a Tracker on a Car? (2026)
Code of Virginia, Title 16.1: Courts Not of Record
§ 16.1-253Preliminary protective orderIn force
A. Upon the motion of any person or upon the court's own motion, the court may issue a preliminary protective order, after a hearing, if necessary to protect a child's life, health, safety or normal development pending the final determination of any matter before the court. The order may require a child's parents, guardian, legal custodian, other person standing in loco parentis or other family or household member of the child to observe reasonable conditions of behavior for a specified length of time. These conditions shall include any one or more of the following: 1. To abstain from offensive conduct against the child, a family or household member of the child or any person to whom custody of the child is awarded; 2. To cooperate in the provision of reasonable services or programs designed to protect the child's life, health or normal development; 3. To allow persons named by the court to come into the child's home at reasonable times designated by the court to visit the child or inspect the fitness of the home and to determine the physical or emotional health of the child; 4. To allow visitation with the child by persons entitled thereto, as determined by the court; 5.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at law.lis.virginia.gov
Cited in 2 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Marshall v. Marshall (District Court, E.D. Virginia 2021)“…ld abuse preliminary protective order, entered pursuant to Va. Code § 16.1-253, an order that differs in critical ways…”
- Wright (District Court, W.D. Virginia 2026)“…held that preliminary child protective orders issued under Va. Code § 16.1-253 (the applicable statute in this case) a…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Sources and References
- Va. Code 18.2-60.5, Unauthorized use of electronic tracking device(law.lis.virginia.gov)
- Va. Code 18.2-60.3, Stalking(law.lis.virginia.gov)
- Va. Code 8.01-42.3, Civil action for stalking(law.lis.virginia.gov)
- Va. Code 18.2-11, Punishment for conviction of misdemeanor(law.lis.virginia.gov)
- Va. Code 18.2-369, Abuse and neglect of vulnerable adults(law.lis.virginia.gov)
- 18 U.S.C. 2261A, Stalking(law.cornell.edu)
- United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012)(law.cornell.edu)