Driving After DUI License Forfeiture in Virginia: § 18.2-272

A charge under Virginia Code § 18.2-272 is not simply another name for every suspended-license case. The statute addresses specified situations involving a lost or restricted driving privilege, an alcohol-related driving restriction, or a required ignition interlock. The reason for the restriction and the exact allegation matter.

If the charging paper lists § 18.2-272, begin with that paper and the orders or licensing records behind it. A general description such as “driving after a DUI” does not identify the applicable subsection, establish guilt, or tell someone whether driving is currently permitted.

Identify the charge and the source of the restriction

Section 18.2-272 is titled “Driving after forfeiture of license.” Its different provisions should be read separately. The statute uses “highway” as defined in § 46.2-100; that legal term should not be reduced to an everyday description such as an interstate highway.

Compare the alleged driving date with the effective dates of the suspension, revocation, or restricted license. Identify which court or agency issued each document and whether a later order changed it. The existence of a physical license card does not by itself answer those record-specific questions.

Driving during a covered deprivation or outside a restricted license

Subsection A covers driving or operating a motor vehicle on a Virginia highway during specified periods when the person has been deprived of that right. Its listed grounds include certain refusal-related determinations, DUI-related suspension provisions, specified DMV revocations, and violations of the terms of particular restricted licenses. The statute also addresses an engine or train.

Do not assume that this subsection always requires an earlier DUI conviction. It expressly references § 46.2-391.2, which provides for an immediate administrative suspension before trial when its conditions are met. The charging paper, suspension notice, and applicable statute must be matched rather than grouped under a single label.

A restricted-license allegation requires the actual restrictions, not an assumption that every permit allows only work or school travel. Read the order and license together. This article does not determine whether a particular trip, vehicle, or purpose was authorized.

The separate 0.02 percent alcohol provision

Subsection B addresses driving or operating on a Virginia highway with a blood alcohol content of 0.02 percent or more when the person’s driving privilege has been restricted, suspended, or revoked because of one of the offenses or similar laws listed in that subsection. It applies regardless of compliance with other restrictions on the privilege.

This is not a rule for every restricted license, and the subsection is not limited to drivers younger than 21. A result below 0.08 does not, by itself, resolve a subsection B allegation. The qualifying basis for the restriction and the alleged alcohol result are separate subjects for review.

Subsection B also cross-references preliminary testing, implied consent, and the testing statutes. That cross-reference does not decide whether a particular test was properly obtained or admissible. Preserve the available test paperwork without treating this summary as scientific analysis or a defense conclusion.

Ignition interlock and remote monitoring are different issues

Subsection C addresses driving or operating on a Virginia highway without the certified ignition interlock required through § 46.2-391.01. The underlying requirement, applicable vehicle, and allegation should be identified from the actual records. A device service report alone is not a complete legal determination.

Remote alcohol monitoring has a different statutory treatment. Subsection D expressly directs the described tampering or attempted circumvention of an ordered remote alcohol monitoring device to § 18.2-270.1(H), rather than making that conduct a § 18.2-272 violation. Ignition-interlock circumvention is addressed separately in § 18.2-270.1(G). Do not treat every monitoring-device allegation as the same charge.

Penalties depend on the statutory path

Subsection A states Class 1 misdemeanor treatment except as otherwise provided in § 46.2-391. Subsection C also specifies a Class 1 misdemeanor. The general Class 1 ceiling under § 18.2-11 is up to 12 months in jail and a fine of up to $2,500, either or both. A maximum is not a predicted sentence.

Section 18.2-272 also states that a person convicted of three violations of the section committed within a 10-year period is guilty of a Class 6 felony. The commission dates matter; this is not simply a count of convictions entered during a calendar window. Section 18.2-10 supplies the Class 6 sentencing framework, including a one-to-five-year prison range and a stated discretionary jail-and-fine alternative.

The separate § 46.2-391 framework can involve mandatory confinement and felony treatment. Subsection D’s conditions and subsection H’s routing rule must be considered when that statute’s revocation or restricted-license path is involved. Do not assume that every first allegation is governed only by the ordinary misdemeanor ceiling or that no mandatory jail provision can apply.

Criminal sentencing is not the entire license question. Sections 18.2-272(A) and (C) also identify administrative revocation consequences through §§ 46.2-389 and 46.2-391. A case-specific review must keep the criminal charge and current licensing status separate.

Organize the records before a case review

Useful records may include the following, to the extent they exist and are lawfully available:

• The summons or warrant, alleged offense date, code section, court, and next hearing date.
• Each suspension, revocation, restricted-license, restoration, or amended order, with the associated notice and effective dates.
• The license and current DMV record, together with any relevant prior-case orders and offense dates.
• Available test paperwork, vehicle identification, interlock installation or service records, and monitoring reports relevant to the allegation.

Preserve records in their original form and identify gaps instead of filling them with assumptions. An incomplete folder does not establish a defense, and completing a requirement later does not by itself resolve the earlier charge. A Virginia attorney must assess the applicable law, proof, and options from the individual record.

Use the guide that matches the legal question

For the separate § 46.2-301 charge, see our suspended or revoked license guide. Questions about DUI suspension chronology, VASAP, restricted driving, and restoration belong in our DUI license and interlock guide. Our Hampton Roads DUI overview addresses the broader subject without replacing review of a § 18.2-272 allegation.

Source research: Official Virginia Code text checked October 16, 2026. No independent Shepard’s or KeyCite subsequent-treatment check was performed. This is general statutory information, not an assessment of an individual’s charge or permission to drive.