HD24 - Laws Governing Local Jails

  • Published: 1991
  • Author: Virginia State Crime Commission
  • Enabling Authority: House Joint Resolution 20 (Regular Session, 1990)

Executive Summary:
Authority for Study

During the 1990 session of the Virginia legislature, Delegate Harry J. Parrish sponsored House Joint Resolution No. 20 (HJR 20), requesting and authorizing the Virginia State Crime Commission to "study laws governing local jails as such laws reflect the authority of regional jail administrators" because "provisions in Title 53.1 of the Code of Virginia relating to administration of jails do not consistently refer to both sheriffs and regional administrators, but in many instances refer inappropriately only to sheriffs." (See, Appendix A.)

Sec. 9-125 of the Code of Virginia establishes and directs the Virginia State Crime Commission (VSCC) "to study, report, and make recommendations on all areas of public safety and protection." Sec. 9-127 of the Code of Virginia provides that "the Commission shall have the duty and power to make such studies and gather information in order to accomplish its purpose, as set forth in Sec. 9-125, and to formulate its recommendations to the Governor and the General Assembly." Sec. 9-134 of the Code of Virginia authorizes the Commission to "conduct private and public hearings, and to designate a member of the Commission to preside over such hearings." The Virginia State Crime Commission, in fulfilling its legislative mandate, undertook the study of laws governing local jails as requested and authorized by HJR 20.

II. Members Appointed to Serve

Subsequent to the April 18, 1990, meeting of the Crime Commission, Chairman, Senator Elman T. Gray, of Sussex, selected Delegate V. Thomas Forehand, Jr. to serve as Chairman of the Jail Issues Subcommittee, the subcommittee assigned to study laws governing local jails and pretrial detention issues. The following members of the Crime Commission were selected to serve on the subcommittee:

Delegate V. Thomas Forehand, Jr., Chesapeake
Senator Howard P. Anderson, Halifax
Delegate Robert B. Ball. Sr., Henrico
Senator Elmo G. Cross, Jr., Hanover
Mr. Robert F. Horan, Jr., Fairfax
Rev. George F. Ricketts, Sr., Richmond
Delegate Clifton A. Woodrum, Roanoke

III. Executive Summary

The full Crime Commission met on December 11, 1990, and received the report of the subcommittee. After careful consideration of this report, the findings and recommendations of the subcommittee were adopted by the Commission. Such findings and recommendations reflect the needs of local law enforcement officers and jail officers in the performance of their respective duties, with a view towards providing each adequate authority to perform those duties while limiting any infringement upon the rights and duties of other sectors of the law enforcement community.

This study was necessitated by the relatively new phenomenon of regional jails, which are established to house jail inmates of multiple jurisdictions. Unlike local jails, which are generally run by the sheriff (and sheriff's deputies) from the jurisdiction in which the jail is located, regional jails are supervised by a superintendent, who is appointed by the jail board for the jurisdictions which such regional jail serves. Because the many Code sections relating to local correctional facilities, passed prior to the establishment of regional jails, did not envision the existence of jail superintendents, there arose confusion as to the authority of such superintendents and those officers serving under them.

The Crime Commission was charged with identifying portions of the Code of Virginia which failed to adequately reflect the proper authority of regional jail superintendents. The subcommittee recommended certain amendments to Title 53.1 of the Code of Virginia, relating to the operation of correctional institutions, consistent with the obligations of regional jail superintendents and jail officers. The recommendations included a statutory definition for local correctional officers. application of that definition in various Code sections, the inclusion of superintendents in record keeping and reporting requirements in Code sections already mandating such action by sheriffs, expansion of sanctions to include superintendents as well as sheriffs and the inclusion of superintendents in certain sections granting authority to sheriffs in the operation of jails.

The substance of these recommendations was to achieve uniformity in Code sections relating exclusively to jail administration so that superintendents and sheriffs alike would possess the appropriate authority, and be held accountable, the proper administration of their respective institutions. A comprehensive list of the recommendations made by the subcommittee may be found in this report, beginning on page 7.