In Virginia courthouses, do sheriffs or judges decide where security cameras go and what doors are locked?

Plain-English summary

The Fredericksburg Sheriff asked the AG who had the final word on three courthouse security questions: location of cameras (including inside clerks' offices), type of door locks, and the sheriff's right to enter any area of the courthouse, locked or unlocked.

The AG: those are rule-making decisions and the judges hold the rule-making authority. The sheriff's role is to enforce the rules and respond to security incidents.

The shared duty. Va. Code § 53.1-120(A) puts the basic security duty on sheriffs: "Each sheriff shall ensure that the courthouses and courtrooms within his jurisdiction are secure from violence and disruption and shall designate deputies for this purpose."

But that authority is not exclusive. Section 53.1-120(B) requires the chief circuit court judge, the chief general district court judge, and the chief juvenile and domestic relations district court judge to agree with the sheriff on "the number, type and working schedules of the courtroom security deputies." If the chief judges and the sheriff cannot agree, the matter goes to the Compensation Board.

The judges' rule-making authority. Section 8.01-4 permits district and circuit courts to "prescribe rules for their respective districts and circuits ... limited to those rules necessary to promote proper order and decorum and the efficient and safe use of courthouse facilities and clerks' offices." Section 17.1-501(B) puts the chief circuit court judge in charge of ensuring the court system "operates smoothly and efficiently."

The Virginia courts have built a consistent body of law on top of these statutes:

• Payne v. Commonwealth (1987): "The trial judge has overall supervision of courtroom security."
• Bd. of Spvrs. v. Bacon (1975): the court controls the portion of the building that comprises the courthouse.
• Porter v. Commonwealth (2008): contrary to a circuit court's initial belief, it has authority to direct sheriff's deputies' conduct within the courtroom.
• Epps v. Commonwealth (2006, aff'd 2007): "Courts have the inherent authority to ensure the security of their courtrooms." A sheriff who disregards a court security order is subject to contempt.

A prior AG opinion (12-065, 2013) already framed the relationship: judges have "supervisory rule-making authority over courthouse security," while the sheriff enforces those rules and works with the court to "establish and maintain courthouse security."

Applying the principles to the Sheriff's specific questions.

• Camera locations (including clerks' offices). Rule-making question. Judges decide. The sheriff implements.
• Type of door locks. Same answer. The hardware is part of the security rule structure judges are entitled to set.
• Sheriff's access to all areas. The 12-065 opinion concluded judges are authorized to determine who is admitted to the courthouse and to what areas. So even the sheriff's own access can be subject to court rules; the sheriff doesn't automatically have an absolute right to enter every locked space.

The collaborative framing. The AG emphasized that "input and agreement among sheriffs and judges is in the public's best interest and should be pursued, if at all possible, on a collaborative basis." The legal allocation of authority sets the backstop when collaboration breaks down. Most security questions get resolved through dialogue between the sheriff and the chief judges, with the structure described above as the fallback.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2013. 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.

The basic statutory framework (§§ 53.1-120, 8.01-4, 17.1-501) has remained stable since 2013, with periodic refinements. The Compensation Board process for resolving disputes about courtroom security deputies has been updated several times.

Common questions

Who pays for courthouse security?
A mix. The sheriff's office (locality) provides personnel; the locality typically provides the facility; the Compensation Board reimburses the locality for some sheriff's office costs; specific equipment purchases may be funded through various federal, state, and local sources.

What if the sheriff and judges flat-out disagree about deputies?
Section 53.1-120(B) sends the dispute to the Compensation Board for resolution. This is the formal escalation path for personnel and scheduling disputes.

Can a sheriff refuse to follow a court security order?
Not safely. Epps v. Commonwealth shows that a sheriff who disregards a court security order is subject to contempt. The Court of Appeals reversed the specific contempt finding on evidentiary grounds in that case, but the underlying principle (court orders bind the sheriff) was confirmed.

Does the judges' authority extend to clerks' offices?
The opinion specifically referenced cameras in clerks' offices. Yes, judges can set security rules for those areas as part of the courthouse facility. The clerk's office is part of the courthouse for security-rule purposes.

What about non-public areas of the courthouse?
The sheriff has clear authority to provide security in all areas where security is needed. But the rules for those areas (camera placement, lock types, access control) are within the judges' rule-making authority.

What is the role of the local board of supervisors?
Funding decisions, capital improvements, building maintenance. Boards of supervisors do not have direct security rule-making authority over courthouses; that is a judicial function.

Can a sheriff sue to override a judicial security rule?
A sheriff can challenge an order through standard appellate or writ procedures. But the inherent powers of courts to control their facilities are well-established; a direct challenge would face a high bar.

Is there a state model courthouse security plan?
The Supreme Court of Virginia's Office of the Executive Secretary publishes guidance and standards on courthouse security. Sheriffs and chief judges typically consult those resources when designing local plans.

Background and statutory framework

• Va. Code § 53.1-120(A): sheriffs' duty to secure courthouses and courtrooms.
• Va. Code § 53.1-120(B): chief judges and sheriff agree on courtroom security deputies; Compensation Board resolves disputes.
• Va. Code § 8.01-4: courts may prescribe rules for proper order, decorum, and efficient and safe use of courthouse facilities and clerks' offices.
• Va. Code § 17.1-501(B): chief circuit court judge ensures smooth and efficient operation of the court system.
• Inherent judicial powers: long-recognized authority of courts to control their own facilities.

The interpretive moves:

• Statutes and inherent powers together vest rule-making in judges.
• Sheriffs have enforcement and security-provision duties under those rules.
• Specific authority for the sheriff (e.g., deputy designation) operates within the larger judge-controlled rule framework.
• Collaboration is the practical norm; the legal allocation is the fallback.

Citations

• Va. Code § 53.1-120
• Va. Code § 8.01-4
• Va. Code § 17.1-501
• Payne v. Commonwealth, 233 Va. 460, 357 S.E.2d 500 (1987)
• Bd. of Spvrs. v. Bacon, 215 Va. 722, 214 S.E.2d 137 (1975)
• Porter v. Commonwealth, 276 Va. 203, 661 S.E.2d 415 (2008)
• Epps v. Commonwealth, 47 Va. App. 687, 626 S.E.2d 912 (2006), aff'd 273 Va. 410, 641 S.E.2d 77 (2007)
• Bond v. Commonwealth, 32 Va. App. 610, 529 S.E.2d 827 (2000)
• 2013 Op. Va. Att'y Gen. No. 12-065
• 2004 Op. Va. Att'y Gen. 170
• 2002 Op. Va. Att'y Gen. 242
• 1998 Op. Va. Att'y Gen. 33
• 1987-88 Op. Va. Att'y Gen. 259
• 1987-88 Op. Va. Att'y Gen. 467

Source

• Landing page: https://www.oag.state.va.us/annual-reports-opinions/official-opinions
• Original PDF: https://www.oag.state.va.us/files/Opinions/2013/13-096_Higgs.pdf

Original opinion text

COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
Office of the Attorney General
Kenneth T. Cuccinelli, II
Attorney General

December 13, 2013

The Honorable Paul W. Higgs
Sheriff, City of Fredericksburg
Post Office Box 448
Fredericksburg, Virginia 22404

900 East Main Street
Richmond, Virginia 23219
804-786-2071
FAX 804-786-1991
Virginia Relay Services
800-828-1120
7-1-1

Dear Sheriff Higgs:

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

Issues Presented

You present several questions regarding a sheriff's legal authority for making decisions related to courthouse security. Specifically, you inquire whether the sheriff is empowered to make final determinations regarding the location of cameras in the courthouse, including areas within clerks' offices, and the type of door locks to be used in the courthouse. You also ask whether a sheriff is permitted to enter all areas of the courthouse, including both locked and unlocked areas.

Response

It is my opinion that, while judges and sheriffs should work together to resolve any issues or concerns about courthouse security, judges retain rule-making authority over courthouse security, and the sheriff is responsible for enforcing the rules and responding to any security threats or disturbances.

Applicable Law and Discussion

Sheriffs have a statutory duty to maintain security within courthouses: § 53.1-120(A) specifically directs that "[e]ach sheriff shall ensure that the courthouses and courtrooms within his jurisdiction are secure from violence and disruption and shall designate deputies for this purpose ...." Thus, sheriffs have the responsibility to provide courthouse security.[1]

This authority, however, is not exclusive and is shared by judges. For instance, § 53.1-120(B) provides further that

The chief circuit court judge, the chief general district court judge and the chief juvenile and domestic relations district court judge shall be responsible by agreement with the sheriff of the jurisdiction for the designation of courtroom security deputies for their respective courts. If the respective chief judges and sheriff are unable to agree on the number, type and working schedules of the courtroom security deputies for the court, the matter shall be referred to the Compensation Board for resolution ....

Moreover, § 8.01-4 more generally provides that "[t]he district courts and circuit courts may, from time to time, prescribe rules for their respective districts and circuits. Such rules shall be limited to those rules necessary to promote proper order and decorum and the efficient and safe use of courthouse facilities and clerks' offices." Section 17.1-501(B) further explains that "[t]he chief judge of the circuit shall ensure that the system of justice in his circuit operates smoothly and efficiently."

Based on these statutes and on courts' inherent powers, Virginia courts have found that "[t]he trial judge has overall supervision of courtroom security."[2] As a prior Opinion of this Office explains, judges "possess supervisory rule-making authority over courthouse security," while the sheriff enforces those rules and works together with the court to "establish and maintain courthouse security."[3] If a court issues an order concerning a security issue, a sheriff who disobeys or disregards that order is subject to being held in contempt.[4] Accordingly, with respect to your first two inquiries, I conclude that the authority to make rules regarding courthouse security questions, including location of cameras and types of locks, lies with the judges and not with the sheriff.

Regarding your third question, a previous Opinion of this Office concluded, based on judges' inherent powers, that judges are authorized to determine who is admitted to the courthouse and to what areas within the courthouse.[5]

Conclusion

Accordingly, it is my opinion that judges and sheriffs share responsibility for courthouse security, but judges have the authority to determine the rules of the courthouse with regards to security while sheriffs possess the legal authority to enforce the rules and to respond to security threats or disturbances.

It is crucial that sheriffs and judges work together to protect the security of the courthouse. Hence, input and agreement among sheriffs and judges is in the public's best interest and should be pursued, if at all possible, on a collaborative basis.

With kindest regards, I am

Very truly yours,

Kenneth T. Cuccinelli, II
Attorney General

[1] For related discussions regarding a sheriff's role in ensuring court security, see 2004 Op. Va. Att'y Gen. 170, 171; 2002 Op. Va. Att'y Gen. 242, 243; 1998 Op. Va. Att'y Gen. 33, 34-35; 1987-88 Op. Va. Att'y Gen. 259, 259-60; 1987-88 Op. Va. Att'y Gen. 467, 468-69; and 2013 Op. Va. Att'y Gen. No. 12-065.

[2] Payne v. Commonwealth, 233 Va. 460, 466, 357 S.E.2d 500, 504 (1987). See also Bd. of Spvrs. v. Bacon, 215 Va. 722, 724, 214 S.E.2d 137, 138 (1975) (court has control over portion of building that comprises the courthouse); Porter v. Commonwealth, 276 Va. 203, 260-61, 661 S.E.2d 415, 445 (2008) (contrary to circuit court's first belief, it has authority to direct sheriff's deputies' conduct within courtroom); Epps v. Commonwealth, 47 Va. App. 687, 701, 626 S.E.2d 912, 918 (2006) ("Courts have the inherent authority to ensure the security of their courtrooms."), aff'd 273 Va. 410, 641 S.E.2d 77 (2007); Bond v. Commonwealth, 32 Va. App. 610, 615, 529 S.E.2d 827, 829 (2000) (trial court properly excluded defendant's twin brother from courtroom, "exercising its responsibility for courtroom security").

[3] 2013 Op. Va. Att'y Gen. No. 12-065.

[4] Epps v. Commonwealth, 47 Va. App. at 717-20, 626 S.E.2d at 926-27 (although the trial court's finding of contempt was reversed on evidentiary grounds, the sheriff who disregarded court order regarding courthouse security was subject to contempt proceeding).

[5] 2013 Op. Va. Att'y Gen. No. 12-065. Nevertheless, that opinion also concluded generally that, "both Virginia law and the practicalities of emergent situations require that ... judges and the sheriff work collaboratively to establish and maintain courthouse security."