Can a Virginia juvenile court order a local sheriff or police officer to transport a violent juvenile to a treatment facility in another state, and does the officer keep arrest authority on the trip?

Plain-English summary

The Richmond Sheriff asked two practical questions about juvenile transportation. First, can a juvenile and domestic relations district court order local law enforcement (the sheriff's office) to transport a violent and disruptive juvenile to a court-ordered placement in another state? Second, if so, what arrest authority does that officer retain once across the Virginia state line?

Attorney General Mark R. Herring answered yes to the first, and "it depends on the host state" to the second.

On the first question: juvenile court judges have broad authority under § 16.1-227 to craft dispositions for juveniles, and the Code contemplates out-of-state placements when special needs require them (§§ 16.1-278.4, 16.1-278.5, 16.1-278.8, 16.1-286). When a juvenile is classified as "violent and disruptive," § 16.1-254(B) gives the chief judge authority to designate the appropriate agencies, other than the Virginia State Police, to handle transportation. The Board of Juvenile Justice's guidelines make explicit that violent and disruptive juveniles "may be transported only by detention home staff or by law enforcement personnel other than the State Police." Those guidelines acknowledge that appropriate transportation may include "destinations in other states." Together, the statute and guidelines authorize the chief judge to order local law enforcement to transport.

On the second question: the general rule is that a law enforcement officer loses arrest authority outside his or her territorial jurisdiction (Hudson v. Commonwealth, 266 Va. 371, 377-78 (2003)). Inside another state, the officer has only the arrest powers that state's law grants. Most states have some form of extraterritorial arrest authority in defined circumstances (hot pursuit, prisoner transport, mutual aid), but the rules vary state to state. The AG declined to opine generally and noted that any specific question would depend on the host state's statutes and any applicable interstate compacts.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2017. 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.

Virginia's juvenile justice statutes and the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children have been amended periodically since 2017. The Board of Juvenile Justice guidelines for transportation are administrative documents that can be revised. Before relying on this opinion to plan a specific transport, check current statutory text, current guidelines, and the host state's current extraterritorial arrest rules.

Background and statutory framework

A Virginia juvenile and domestic relations district court has broad discretion to craft dispositions involving juveniles, including out-of-state placements. Section 16.1-227 grants the court "all necessary and incidental powers and authority" to effectuate Chapter 11 of Title 16.1. The Court of Appeals in B.P. v. Commonwealth, 38 Va. App. 735, 738 (2002), recognized the broad powers of the court over juvenile crime prevention and rehabilitation.

The Code permits out-of-state placements for juveniles adjudicated delinquent or found to be in need of services or supervision. Sections 16.1-278.4, 16.1-278.5, 16.1-278.8, and 16.1-286 authorize the court to assign such juveniles to out-of-state placements in defined circumstances, often when the juvenile has special needs that must be addressed outside the Commonwealth. Custody transfers to out-of-state entities require approval from the Commissioner of Social Services (for a child in need of services or supervision) or the Director of the Department of Juvenile Justice (for a delinquent juvenile). Section 16.1-286 requires compliance with the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children (Va. Code Ann. § 63.2-1100 et seq.) or with regulations of the State Board of Social Services for resident children placed outside Virginia.

For transportation of "violent and disruptive" juveniles, § 16.1-254(B) sets a specific designation framework. The chief judge of the juvenile court, "on the basis of guidelines approved by the Board [of Juvenile Justice], shall designate the appropriate agencies in each county, city and town, other than the Department of State Police, to be responsible for ... the transportation of violent and disruptive children." The Board's guidelines confirm that this category of juvenile "may be transported only by detention home staff or by law enforcement personnel other than the State Police" and that appropriate destinations may include "destinations in other states." Section 16.1-278 requires sheriffs to cooperate with the juvenile court, consistent with the long-standing principle from Malbon v. Commonwealth, 195 Va. 368, 371 (1953), that a sheriff is "an officer of the court[,] subject to its orders and directions."

A right of appeal from such an order lies to the circuit court under § 16.1-278.

On extraterritorial law enforcement authority, the controlling general rule is from Hudson v. Commonwealth, 266 Va. 371, 377-78 (2003): "[A] law enforcement officer acting outside his or her territorial jurisdiction ... has the same authority to arrest as does a private citizen." Inside another state, the officer has only the arrest powers conferred by that state's law. Some states grant extraterritorial arrest authority in narrow circumstances (hot pursuit, prisoner-in-custody scenarios). The AG cited 1960 Op. N.M. Att'y Gen. 423 for the proposition that extraterritorial police activities are lawful only when permitted by the laws of the neighboring state. Interstate compacts (such as those addressing prisoner extradition or mutual aid for law enforcement) can also affect this analysis, but they vary.

Common questions

Q: Can a Virginia juvenile court order our sheriff's office to transport a violent juvenile to a treatment facility in another state?
A: The AG concluded yes. Section 16.1-254(B), combined with the Board of Juvenile Justice's transportation guidelines, allows the chief judge to designate local law enforcement (other than the State Police) for this kind of transport, including to out-of-state destinations.

Q: Can the sheriff refuse?
A: A sheriff is an officer of the court and subject to its orders. Section 16.1-278 specifically requires cooperation with juvenile court orders. There is a right of appeal to circuit court for such orders.

Q: Once we cross the state line, do our officers retain arrest authority?
A: Generally no, unless the host state's law specifically grants extraterritorial authority for that scenario. The AG declined to opine generally because the answer is state-specific.

Q: What if the juvenile becomes combative in another state during transport?
A: The officers' options depend on the host state's law on extraterritorial peace-officer authority, hot pursuit, and emergency response. Operational planning before the transport should include coordination with the host state and possibly local law enforcement there.

Q: Why exclude the State Police from this responsibility?
A: Section 16.1-254(B) explicitly directs the chief judge to designate agencies "other than the Department of State Police." The statute reflects a legislative judgment about which agencies should handle juvenile-specific transport.

Q: Does the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children come into play?
A: Yes, for placements covered by it. Section 16.1-286 requires compliance with the ICPC or with State Board of Social Services regulations for resident children placed outside Virginia. The Compact governs the placement, not the transport mechanics.

Citations and references

Virginia statutes:

• Va. Code Ann. § 16.1-227 (juvenile court powers)
• Va. Code Ann. § 16.1-254 (transportation designations)
• Va. Code Ann. § 16.1-278 (sheriff cooperation; appeal rights)
• Va. Code Ann. § 16.1-278.4 (children in need of services dispositions)
• Va. Code Ann. § 16.1-278.5 (children in need of supervision)
• Va. Code Ann. § 16.1-278.8 (delinquent juvenile dispositions)
• Va. Code Ann. § 16.1-286 (out-of-state placement conditions)
• Va. Code Ann. § 63.2-1100 et seq. (Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children)
• Va. Code Ann. § 2.2-505 (AG advisory opinion authority)

Cases:

• B.P. v. Commonwealth, 38 Va. App. 735 (2002)
• Hudson v. Commonwealth, 266 Va. 371 (2003)
• Malbon v. Commonwealth, 195 Va. 368 (1953)

Administrative materials:

• Va. Dep't of Juvenile Justice, Guidelines for Transporting Juveniles in Detention

Prior AG opinions:

• 1997 Op. Va. Att'y Gen. 60
• 2010 Op. Va. Att'y Gen. 56
• 2013 Op. Va. Att'y Gen. 218

Source

• Landing page: https://www.oag.state.va.us/annual-reports-opinions/official-opinions
• Original PDF: https://www.oag.state.va.us/files/Opinions/2017/16-037-Woody-transport-of-juveniles.pdf

Original opinion text

COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
Office of the Attorney General
Mark R. Herring
Attorney General

April 6, 2017

The Honorable C.T. Woody, Jr.
Sheriff, City of Richmond
Richmond City Justice Center
1701 Fairfield Way
Richmond, Virginia 23223

Dear Sheriff Woody:

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 ask whether § 16.1-254 of the Code authorizes the chief judge of a juvenile and domestic relations district court to order that local law enforcement personnel shall be responsible for the transportation of violent and disruptive juveniles to out-of-state destinations. If so, you ask whether a local law enforcement officer retains law enforcement authority while transporting a juvenile in another state.

Applicable Law and Discussion

Virginia law authorizes juvenile and domestic relations district court judges to order the out-of-state placement of juveniles in certain circumstances. This is consistent with the principle that a judge generally has broad discretionary powers when crafting dispositions in cases involving juveniles.[1] For example, §§ 16.1-278.4, 16.1-278.5, 16.1-278.8, and 16.1-286, which appear most relevant to your inquiry, set forth procedures permitting a judge to order that a juvenile who is adjudicated as delinquent, or found to be a child in need of services or supervision, shall be assigned to an out-of-state placement.[2] Often, this type of placement occurs when the juvenile has extraordinary or special needs that must be addressed at a specialized location outside the Commonwealth.[3]

If the juvenile is considered "violent and disruptive," then § 16.1-254(B) governs who shall be responsible for providing transportation. It provides that "the chief judge of the juvenile and domestic relations district court, on the basis of guidelines approved by the Board [of Juvenile Justice], shall designate the appropriate agencies in each county, city and town, other than the Department of State Police, to be responsible for ... the transportation of violent and disruptive children ...." The Board's guidelines, in turn, provide that violent and disruptive juveniles "may be transported only by detention home staff or by law enforcement personnel other than the State Police."[4] Accordingly, the chief judge may designate that local law enforcement personnel shall provide transportation to violent and disruptive juveniles assigned to out-of-state destinations.[5]

I next turn to your inquiry with respect to the law enforcement authority of a local officer transporting a juvenile in an out-of-state jurisdiction. In general, a law enforcement officer loses his arrest authority when he travels outside the boundaries of his territorial jurisdiction.[6] Once in another state, he has only those arrest powers provided by the laws of that state.[7] Most states have laws in place that may allow for extraterritorial arrest in certain circumstances, but they differ from state to state. Consequently, I cannot provide advice on this subject that would be applicable in all states. Any particular inquiry into the authority of a law enforcement officer transporting a prisoner in another state will depend on the laws of that state.[8]

Conclusion

Accordingly, it is my opinion that § 16.1-254 of the Code authorizes the chief judge of a juvenile and domestic relations district court to order that local law enforcement personnel shall be responsible for transporting violent and disruptive juveniles to court-ordered out-of-state destinations. When a local law enforcement officer is transporting a prisoner in another state, he has only such law enforcement authority over the prisoner as may be provided by the laws of that state.

With kindest regards, I am

Very truly yours,

Mark R. Herring
Attorney General

[1] See VA. CODE ANN. § 16.1-227 (2015) (stating that a juvenile and domestic relations district court judge "shall possess all necessary and incidental powers and authority" to effectuate the purposes of Chapter 11 of Title 16.1); see also B.P. v. Commonwealth, 38 Va. App. 735, 738 (2002) (noting the broad powers of a juvenile district court over crime prevention and juvenile rehabilitation).

[2] These statutes place specific conditions on out-of-state placement. For instance, a judge may not transfer legal custody of a juvenile to a qualified out-of-state entity without the approval of the Commissioner of Social Services (in the case of a child in need of services or supervision), or the Director of the Department of Juvenile Justice (in the case of a delinquent juvenile). See §§ 16.1-278.4 (2015); 16.1-278.5(B)(1) (2015); 16.1-278.8 (2015). See also § 16.1-286 (2015) (establishing other conditions on out-of-state placement, including compliance with "the appropriate provisions of Chapter 11 (§ 63.2-1100 et seq.) of Title 63.2 [relating to the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children] or with regulations of the State Board of Social Services relating to resident children placed out of the Commonwealth").

[3] See § 16.1-286.

[4] VA. DEP'T OF JUVENILE JUSTICE, GUIDELINES FOR TRANSPORTING JUVENILES IN DETENTION, at Part II(A). The Guidelines correctly suggest that appropriate transportation of violent and disruptive juveniles under § 16.1-254(B) may include "destinations in other states." The Board's listing of local law enforcement as an appropriate agency to provide such transportation is consistent with the principle that a sheriff in Virginia is "an officer of the court[,] subject to its orders and directions." 1997 Op. Va. Att'y Gen. 60, 61 (quoting Malbon v. Commonwealth, 195 Va. 368, 371 (1953)). Furthermore, a sheriff is required under § 16.1-278 to cooperate and render such assistance as the judge orders to effectuate the purpose of juvenile district court law.

[5] There is a right of appeal to circuit court for such orders. See § 16.1-278.

[6] Hudson v. Commonwealth, 266 Va. 371, 377-78 (2003) ("[A] law enforcement officer acting outside his or her territorial jurisdiction ... has the same authority to arrest as does a private citizen ....") (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also AM. JUR. 2d, Arrest, § 50 (stating that, as a general rule, a peace officer acting outside the territorial boundaries of his or her jurisdiction has no official powers to apprehend offenders).

[7] See, e.g., AM. JUR. 2d, Criminal Law, § 425 (discussing the general principle that states have authority to enact and enforce criminal laws only within their own borders, and may not intrude upon the sovereign authority of another state); 1960 Op. N.M. Att'y Gen. 423, 423 ("Since extra-territorial police activities constitute an invasion of the neighboring state's sovereign power, they are lawful, only when permitted by the laws of the neighboring state.").

[8] Attorneys General traditionally have refrained from commenting on matters requiring additional facts to resolve. See, e.g., 2013 Op. Va. Att'y Gen. 218, 220 n.8; 2010 Op. Va. Att'y Gen. 56, 58. I also note that this analysis does not take into account any lawful compacts or agreements that may exist authorizing jurisdiction-sharing across state lines.