Va. Code » Title 53.1. Prisons and Other Methods of Correction » Chapter 3. Local Correctional Facilities » Article 6. Duties of Sheriffs
Virginia Code

Va. Code Ann. § 53.1-127 (2026)

Who may enter interior of local correctional facilities; searches of those entering

✓ laws through the 2026 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section VA-LISlaw.lis.virginia.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A. Members of the local governing bodies that participate in the funding of a local correctional facility may go into the interior of that facility. The Governor, members of the General Assembly, and agents of the Board may go into the interior of any local correctional facility. In addition, Department of Corrections staff and state and local health department staff shall, in the performance of their duties, have access to the interior of any local correctional facility subject to the standards promulgated pursuant to subsections A and B of § 53.1-68. Attorneys shall be permitted in the interior of a local correctional facility to confer with prisoners who are their clients and with prisoners who are witnesses in cases in which they are involved. Except for the announced or unannounced inspections authorized pursuant to subsections A and B of § 53.1-68 or a review conducted pursuant to § 53.1-69.1, the sheriff, jail administrator, or other person in charge of the facility shall prescribe the time and conditions under which attorneys and other persons may enter the local correctional facility for which he is responsible.

B. Any person seeking to enter the interior of any local correctional facility shall be subject to a search of his person and effects. Such search shall be performed in a manner reasonable under the circumstances and may be a condition precedent to entering a local correctional facility.

1982, c. 636; 1995, c. 797; 2017, c. 759; 2022, c. 277.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 2005–2006 · leading case: George M. Epps v. Commonwealth, 626 S.E.2d 912 (Va. Ct. App. 2006).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
George M. Epps v. Commonwealth, 626 S.E.2d 912 (Va. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 6× “10 The issues here are 1) whether Judge Baskervill had a right to demand the return of the sign and order removed from the courthouse door, and 2) if she had that right, did she, in fact, make that demand? By failing to cite any authority in support of this argument in his…”
Epps v. Commonwealth, 616 S.E.2d 67 (Va. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 4× “[8] In his reply brief, appellant argues the order was not an order at all, but simply a confirmation of the agreement between appellant and the judges. Since this issue was not raised in the questions presented nor in appellant's brief, we will not address it.”
George M. Epps v. Commonwealth, No. 0591042 (Va. Ct. App. Mar. 14, 2006). · cites it 4× “10 The issues here are 1) whether Judge Baskervill had a right to demand the return of the sign and order removed from the courthouse door, and 2) if she had that right, did she, in fact, make that demand? By failing to cite any authority in support of this argument in his…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.