implied consent under Code § 18.2-268.2, the arrest must have been lawful”); see also Overbee v. Commonwealth, 227 Va. 238, 243, 315 S.E.2d 242, 244 (1984) (untimely arrest); Thomas v. Marion, 226 Va. 251, 254, 308 S.E.2d 120, 122 (1983) (unlawful arrest); Durant v. Suffolk, 4 Va.App. 445, 449, 358 S.E.2d 732, 734 (1987). By failing to satisfy a basic condition underlying the statute, the Commonwealth has no right to collect the sample in the first place and, a fortiori, even less right to offer into evidence test results based on the sample. It may also be appropriate to exclude the BAC test results in cases where the statutory violation calls into serious question the reliability of the test results. See, e.g., Hudson v. Commonwealth, 21 Va.App. 184, 186, 462 S.E.2d 913, 914 (1995) (<HOLDING>). In suppressing the evidence in such cases,
recognizing problems with generalizing from an extremely limited sample when a broader sample  can be readily obtained and when no showing of the representativeness of the sample is made holding bac test results inadmissible due to the potential contamination of a blood sample with benadine topical agent holding blood sample does not constitute compelled testimony holding defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in blood sample drawn by hospital holding where police officer specifically requested bac test be performed on defendant at hospital and defendant did not dispute police officers probable cause to believe defendant drove under influence of alcohol defendants consent to undergo blood test was implied and hospital was required to release bac results