Does Virginia's war-monument protection statute also cover markers placed to highlight a historic building?

Plain-English summary

Danville's city attorney asked whether a memorial or marker placed to recognize a building's historical significance was covered by Virginia Code § 15.2-1812, the statute then in effect that made it unlawful for local authorities or anyone else to disturb, deface, or remove certain locally erected monuments. The AG concluded that § 15.2-1812 protected only monuments commemorating wars, conflicts, engagements within wars, and the veterans of those wars. A marker recognizing the historical significance of a building did not fall within that protected category.

The opinion read § 15.2-1812 together with the criminal statute (§ 18.2-137) and the civil-damages statute (§ 15.2-1812.1), both of which described § 15.2-1812 as applying to "war veterans" monuments. Under the in pari materia canon, the AG concluded those companion statutes confirmed that the General Assembly's chosen protection was tied to military service and conflict, not to historic-building commemoration.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2015. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Readers should be aware that § 15.2-1812 has been the subject of significant legislative activity since 2015, including changes in the wake of the 2017 Charlottesville events that altered how localities may relocate or remove war monuments. Check the current text of § 15.2-1812 and any subsequent AG opinions before relying on the framing here.

Background and statutory framework

The General Assembly has authorized local war monuments since 1904. The 1998 enactment of § 15.2-1812 in force at the time of this opinion authorized localities to "erect monuments or memorials for any war or conflict, or for any engagement of such war or conflict," and made it "unlawful for the authorities of the locality, or any other person or persons, to disturb or interfere with any monuments or memorials so erected." "Disturb or interfere with" expressly included removal, damaging, or defacing.

Two related provisions framed the AG's reading. Section 15.2-1812.1 authorized civil damages for violations of § 15.2-1812 and described the covered objects as monuments for "war veterans." Section 18.2-137 made unlawful damage to a monument or memorial described in § 15.2-1812 a criminal offense, graded from a Class 3 misdemeanor up to a Class 6 felony depending on intent and amount of damage. The AG cited Prillaman v. Commonwealth, 199 Va. 401 (1957), for the in pari materia canon: statutes addressing closely connected subjects are read together. Because the terms "war," "conflict," and "war veterans" were not statutorily defined, the AG looked to ordinary meaning, citing Am. Tradition Inst. v. Rector & Visitors of the Univ. of Va., 287 Va. 330 (2014).

For context, § 15.2-1822 at the time identified fifteen wars or conflicts, ranging from the Algonquin War of 1622 through Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Common questions

Q: What did this opinion say about removing a historic-building marker?
A: At the time, the AG concluded that § 15.2-1812's removal prohibition did not apply to a marker commemorating a building's historical significance. Whether such a marker could be removed therefore turned on ordinary local property, contract, and zoning rules rather than on the war-monument statute.

Q: Did the opinion address whether the protection extended to war veterans?
A: Yes. The opinion explained that although the text of § 15.2-1812 spoke only of monuments to wars or conflicts, two closely connected statutes characterized it as also reaching monuments to war veterans. Read in pari materia, the AG concluded the statute covered both wars/conflicts and veterans of those wars.

Q: What were the criminal consequences described in the opinion for damaging a covered monument?
A: The opinion noted that a violation is a criminal offense under § 18.2-137 that can range from a Class 3 misdemeanor (for damage without intent to steal) up to a Class 6 felony (for intentional damage of $1,000 or more), depending on the nature of the conduct. The opinion did not spell out the specific fine or jail amounts.

Q: Was the AG saying historic markers could be removed at will?
A: No. The AG was answering a narrow question about whether one specific statute, § 15.2-1812, applied. Other property, contract, deed-restriction, easement, or zoning rules might govern any particular historic marker. The opinion took no position on those other sources of authority.

Citations and references

Statutes (as cited in the opinion):

• Va. Code Ann. § 15.2-1812 (monument protection)
• Va. Code Ann. § 15.2-1812.1 (civil damages for violation of § 15.2-1812)
• Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-137 (criminal liability for damage to certain monuments)
• Va. Code Ann. § 15.2-1822 (list of wars/conflicts)
• Va. Code Ann. § 1-221 (definition of "locality")
• Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-10(f); § 18.2-11(a), (c) (criminal penalty classes)
• Va. Code Ann. § 2.2-505 (AG advisory opinion authority)

Cases:

• Prillaman v. Commonwealth, 199 Va. 401 (1957), in pari materia canon
• Am. Tradition Inst. v. Rector & Visitors of the Univ. of Va., 287 Va. 330 (2014), ordinary meaning of undefined statutory terms

Source

• Landing page: https://www.oag.state.va.us/annual-reports-opinions/official-opinions
• Original PDF: https://www.oag.state.va.us/files/Opinions/2015/15-050_Whitfield.pdf

Original opinion text

Best-effort transcription from a scanned PDF. Minor errors may remain, the linked PDF is authoritative.

COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA

Office of the Attorney General
Mark R. Herring, Attorney General

900 East Main Street
Richmond, Virginia 23219
804-786-2071
FAX 804-786-1991
Virginia Relay Services
800-828-1140

August 6, 2015

W. Clarke Whitfield, Jr., Esquire
Danville City Attorney
Post Office Box 3300
Danville, Virginia 24543

Dear Mr. Whitfield:

I am responding to your request for an official advisory Opinion in accordance with § 2.2-505 of the Code of Virginia.

Issue Presented

You inquire whether a memorial or marker erected to recognize the historical significance of a building is subject to the protections of § 15.2-1812 of the Code of Virginia.

Applicable Law and Discussion

Beginning in 1904, the General Assembly has enacted laws authorizing local monuments and memorials (collectively, simply "monuments") to wars and veterans. Section 15.2-1812, as enacted in 1998, permits localities to erect monuments for "any war or conflict." In relevant part, it states:

A locality may . . . authorize and permit the erection of monuments or memorials for any war or conflict, or for any engagement of such war or conflict . . . . If such are erected, it shall be unlawful for the authorities of the locality, or any other person or persons, to disturb or interfere with any monuments or memorials so erected, or to prevent its citizens from taking proper measures and exercising proper means for the protection, preservation and care of same. For purposes of this section, "disturb or interfere with" includes removal of, [or] damaging or defacing monuments or memorials . . . .

Simply put, the statute empowers a locality to authorize and permit a monument commemorating various wars or conflicts, including veterans of those wars, and thereafter to maintain it. It also bars "authorities of the locality" from disturbing or interfering with the monument, to include removing it. Further, it bars the locality's "authorities" from preventing maintenance of the monument by citizens. Violation of the statute is a criminal offense that may range from a Class 3 misdemeanor to a Class 6 felony, depending on the nature of the conduct.

The terms "war," "conflict," and "war veterans" are not statutorily defined. "When the legislature leaves a term undefined, courts must give [it] its ordinary meaning, taking into account the context in which it is used."

The importance of honoring all of our veterans, especially those who have given their lives and paid the ultimate sacrifice for us, our country and our freedoms, cannot be overstated. These brave men and women deserve our full support, and the General Assembly has chosen to extend certain protections to monuments honoring their service. The General Assembly has not chosen, however, to extend that same level of protection to memorials erected to recognize the historical significance of buildings. Here, the statutes do not address protecting monuments commemorating the historical significance of buildings. The plain language of §§ 18.2-137, 15.2-1812 and 15.2-1812.1 is limited to monuments for any war or conflict and for veterans of those wars and conflicts. Accordingly, it is my view that § 15.2-1812 applies to monuments commemorating certain wars and veterans of those wars, but not to monuments commemorating buildings.

Conclusion

For the reasons stated, it is my view that § 15.2-1812 of the Code of Virginia applies to monuments for any war or conflict, including an engagement in such war or conflict, or for war veterans, but not to memorials or markers erected to recognize the historical significance of buildings.

With kind regards, I am

Sincerely yours,

Mark R. Herring
Attorney General

(Footnotes in the original opinion explain that § 15.2-1822 listed fifteen wars or conflicts from the Algonquin War of 1622 through Operation Iraqi Freedom; that § 15.2-1812.1 and § 18.2-137 both characterized § 15.2-1812 as applying to "war veterans," supporting an in pari materia reading; and that criminal penalties under § 18.2-137 ranged from a Class 3 misdemeanor for damage without intent to steal up to a Class 6 felony for intentional damage of $1,000 or more.)