constitutional rights occurred.” Thompson v. Commonwealth, 10 Va. App. 117, 122, 390 S.E.2d 198, 201 (1990) (citations omitted); see also Penn v. Commonwealth, 13 Va. App. 399, 407, 412 S.E.2d 189, 194 (1991), aff’d, 244 Va. 218, 420 S.E.2d 713 (1992); Troncoso v. Commonwealth, 12 Va. App. 942, 944, 407 S.E.2d 349, 350 (1991). “ ‘[Historically, searches or seizures made contrary to provisions contained in Virginia statutes provide no right of suppression unless the statute supplies that right.’ ” Troncoso, 12 Va. App. at 944, 407 S.E.2d at 350 (quoting Commonwealth v. Brown, 8 Va. App. 41, 44, 378 S.E.2d 623, 624 (1989) (Baker, J., concurring)). Code § 19.2-57 is a procedural statute “found in the chapter of the code dealing with the issuance and execution of search warrants.” Id. (<HOLDING>). Code § 19.2-57 does not expressly command the
holding a statutory violation insufficient to justify imposition of the exclusionary rule absent an underlying constitutional violation or right holding that exclusionary rule only requires exclusion of evidence obtained in violation of constitutional rights and that exclusion of evidence obtained in violation of statutory rights is not necessarily required holding that a violation of  6103 does not require the application of the exclusionary rule holding that because code  19260 a procedural statute did not expressly provide a right of suppression of evidence a violation of that provision did not require application of the exclusionary rule in the absence of a constitutional violation holding a statutory violation insufficient to justify imposition of the exclusionary rule absent an underlying constitutional violation or right or evidence that congress intended exclusion as a remedy