If a Virginia sheriff stores his own records on a server owned by the county or city, can the county administrator restrict or deny the sheriff's access to those records?

Subject

Local government officials may not interfere with, hinder, or prevent the sheriff's access to records of the sheriff that are stored on a server that is the property of the local governing body.

Plain-English summary

Mathews County Sheriff April Edwards asked whether the county administrator could limit or block her access to her own office's records, which were stored in a data system housed on a county-owned server. The AG said no.

Sheriffs in Virginia are constitutional officers under Va. Const. art. VII, § 4. They are not subordinate to or controlled by the local governing body. They have statutory duties to maintain law-enforcement, jail-operation, juvenile, and personnel records. They also operate under significant state and federal confidentiality rules for criminal-history information, juvenile records, and similar materials. None of that recordkeeping can be policed by the local government, even when the technical infrastructure (servers) belongs to the locality. Recordkeeping is critical to the sheriff's office, and the sheriff needs unfettered access to the data she is responsible for under law.

The opinion acknowledges that localities can perform routine system maintenance, but says it must be "without undue disruption" and must account for the confidential nature of the records. The opinion does not address what to do if the locality and sheriff disagree about specifics; that becomes a fact-bound dispute and likely a question for the courts.

What this means for you

For Virginia sheriffs

You have a strong legal basis for refusing any locality attempt to restrict your access to your office's records, even if those records live on county-owned IT systems. Document any such restriction in writing, point to this opinion, and if necessary involve the Commonwealth's Attorney or court action. Set up your office's IT-use agreement with the locality (if any) to memorialize unrestricted access from the start.

For county administrators and IT directors

The legal default is hands-off when it comes to a sheriff's records. You can supply servers and storage and you can perform routine maintenance, but you cannot impose access restrictions on the sheriff. If you suspect misconduct or have other concerns, raise them through legal counsel, not by cutting off database access. Treat sheriff records like records of any constitutional officer who has chosen to use shared infrastructure: technical hosting does not transfer ownership or control.

For locality IT contracts and policies

Review any data-system MOU or hosting agreement involving constitutional officers' records. The agreement should preserve the officer's full access, address how routine maintenance is scheduled and approved, address confidentiality requirements (criminal history, juvenile records, etc.), and avoid any "system administrator can disable user access at will" language that conflicts with the sheriff's authority.

For sheriff's deputies and staff

Operational continuity matters here. If your locality cuts off sheriff's office access to needed records (criminal history files, juvenile fingerprint records, jail operations data), that is presumptively unlawful under this opinion. Escalate to the sheriff and her counsel. Do not rebuild the records on a workaround system without coordinating with the sheriff (criminal-history confidentiality rules apply regardless of where you store the data).

For citizens with FOIA requests to the sheriff

This opinion is about access between the sheriff and the locality, not between the public and the sheriff. Sheriffs remain subject to the Virginia Freedom of Information Act, §§ 2.2-3700 to 2.2-3715, with the usual law-enforcement exemptions. A citizen request to the sheriff should still go through the sheriff's FOIA officer, regardless of where the data lives physically.

Common questions

What are sheriffs constitutionally?

Sheriffs are constitutional officers under Va. Const. art. VII, § 4. They are elected (not appointed by the locality) and their powers and duties are set by general state law, not by local governing bodies. They are independent of the city or county government.

What records does the sheriff have to maintain?

Multiple categories under various statutes: arrest and investigative records (§ 15.2-1722), personnel records (§ 15.2-1722), jail operations records (§§ 53.1-116, 53.1-123), juvenile records (§§ 16.1-299, 16.1-301), criminal history record information (CHRI under 6 VAC § 20-120-40, plus § 9.1-128(A) restrictions on dissemination), and others.

Can the locality do any IT work on the sheriff's data systems?

Yes, but limited. The opinion specifically notes the conclusion "should not be read to preclude the locality from performing occasional, routine system maintenance, but such maintenance must take into account the confidential nature of the records stored therein and must be performed without undue disruption to the operations of the sheriff's office."

What if the locality is paying for the servers?

That does not change the analysis. Funding and ownership of the hardware is one thing; access to and control over the data is another. The sheriff's office, as a state-law constitutional officer, retains operational control over its records regardless of where they sit physically.

Can the locality access the data themselves?

Not freely. The records may include criminal-history information, juvenile records, and other categories that are confidential by statute. Locality employees who are not authorized recipients under the relevant confidentiality rules cannot access this data without potential civil or criminal liability (see §§ 9.1-135, 9.1-136).

What about the treasurer or commissioner of the revenue using locality systems?

The opinion cites 2005 Op. Va. Att'y Gen. 147 (commissioner of the revenue using locality data systems), which similarly emphasized the constitutional officer's continued control and noted non-employees of the constitutional officer cannot have unrestricted access. The analysis carries across constitutional officers.

What is the practical remedy if a county administrator does interfere?

The opinion does not lay out a specific remedy. As a practical matter, the sheriff could (a) seek mediation through the locality's elected leadership, (b) consult with the Commonwealth's Attorney (who handles local enforcement of certain government-ethics matters), or (c) seek judicial relief, possibly injunctive, asserting the constitutional and statutory rights described in the opinion.

Background and statutory framework

The Virginia framework around sheriffs and constitutional officers:

• Constitution: Va. Const. art. VII, § 4 establishes constitutional officer status and that powers/duties "shall be prescribed by general law or special act."
• Independence from locality: A long line of AG opinions (1966-67, 1975-76, 1977-78, 1978-79, 1982-83, 1984-85, 1987-88, 2008, 2010) and Supreme Court of Virginia cases (Roop v. Whitt, Carraway v. Hill, Doud v. Commonwealth) establish that constitutional officers cannot be controlled by local governing bodies absent specific statutory authority.
• Records duties: Multiple statutes impose recordkeeping duties (§§ 15.2-1722, 16.1-299, 16.1-301, 53.1-116, 53.1-123) and confidentiality protections (§§ 9.1-128(A), 9.1-130, 9.1-135, 9.1-136, 19.2-389, and FOIA exemptions).
• Confidentiality framework: 6 VAC § 20-120-40 and § 9.1-101 govern collection, update, and dissemination of criminal history record information.

This opinion sits with a long line of AG decisions affirming that constitutional officers have "exclusive control over the operation of their offices" absent specific statutory grants to local governments. See 2010 Op. Va. Att'y Gen. 19; 2008 Op. Va. Att'y Gen. 44; 1982-83 Op. Va. Att'y Gen. 128.

Citations

• Va. Const. art. VII, § 4 (constitutional officers)
• Va. Code Ann. § 2.2-505 (advisory opinion authority)
• Va. Code Ann. § 9.1-101 (criminal justice agency definitions)
• Va. Code Ann. § 9.1-128(A) (CHRI dissemination restrictions)
• Va. Code Ann. § 9.1-130(1) (system-security duties)
• Va. Code Ann. § 9.1-131 (audit)
• Va. Code Ann. §§ 9.1-135(A), 9.1-136 (civil/criminal liability for unlawful dissemination)
• Va. Code Ann. § 15.2-1600(B) (constitutional officer powers preserved)
• Va. Code Ann. § 15.2-1609 (sheriff law-enforcement duties)
• Va. Code Ann. § 15.2-1722 (sheriff recordkeeping duties)
• Va. Code Ann. § 16.1-299 (juvenile fingerprint/photograph records)
• Va. Code Ann. § 16.1-301 (juvenile law-enforcement records protections)
• Va. Code Ann. § 19.2-389 (criminal history release)
• Va. Code Ann. §§ 53.1-116, 53.1-123 (jail records)
• Va. Code Ann. §§ 2.2-3700 to 2.2-3715 (FOIA)
• Va. Code Ann. §§ 2.2-3800 to 2.2-3809 (Government Data Collection and Dissemination Practices Act)
• Va. Code Ann. §§ 42.1-76 to 42.1-91.1 (Virginia Public Records Act)
• 6 VAC § 20-120-40 (criminal history record information)
• Roop v. Whitt, 289 Va. 274 (2015)
• Carraway v. Hill, 265 Va. 20 (2003)
• Doud v. Commonwealth, 282 Va. 317 (2011)

Source

• Landing page: https://www.oag.state.va.us/annual-reports-opinions/official-opinions
• Original PDF: https://www.oag.state.va.us/files/Opinions/2025/24-034-Edwards-issued.pdf

Original opinion text

COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
Office of the Attorney General
Jason S. Miyares
Attorney General
December 31, 2025

The Honorable April Edwards
Sheriff, Mathews County
10622 Buckley Hall Road, Suite B
Post Office Box 190
Mathews, Virginia 23109

Dear Sheriff Edwards:

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

Issue Presented

You inquire regarding control of records maintained by the sheriff that are stored in a data system housed on a server owned and managed by the local governing body. You specifically ask whether a county administrator has the authority to restrict or deny the sheriff access to those records.

Response

It is my opinion that local governments may not deny access to records of the sheriff that are stored on a server that is the property of the local governing body.

Applicable Law and Discussion

Sheriffs are constitutional officers whose powers and duties "shall be prescribed by general law or special act."[1] Among other duties, the sheriff "shall enforce the law or see that it is enforced in the locality from which he is elected."[2] In fulfilling his duties, the sheriff must maintain, among other records, adequate arrest and investigative records as "necessary for the efficient operation of a law enforcement agency."[3] The sheriff "shall keep separate records as to violations of law committed by juveniles . . . ."[4]

"[E]xcept as limited by law, [a sheriff] is free to discharge his prescribed powers and duties in a manner he deems appropriate."[5] Not only does a sheriff have a statutory duty to maintain certain records, but proper recordkeeping generally is critical to the regular administration of the sheriff's office. No law prohibits a sheriff from using servers supplied by the locality. A sheriff therefore may exercise his "discretion in the day-to-day operations of the office" to enter into an agreement with the local governing body for such use.[6]

The storing of records on the locality's servers does not divest the sheriff of ultimate responsibility for those records.[7] Regardless of how a sheriff chooses to store his records, a sheriff's office is subject to laws and regulations regarding the maintenance and dissemination of that record information. For instance, like most other governmental entities, a sheriff must be able to fulfill any record-related duties arising from the Virginia Freedom of Information Act,[8] the Virginia Public Records Act,[9] and the Government Data Collection and Dissemination Practices Act.[10]

More specifically, as a criminal justice agency,[11] the sheriff's office is responsible "for collecting and updating criminal history record information."[12] While some information, including updated information, is required to be reported to other agencies within specified timeframes,[13] the authority of the sheriff to otherwise disseminate criminal history record information is restricted by law.[14] Moreover, in maintaining any criminal justice information system, the sheriff is charged with adopting procedures to ensure the "security of the system and the prevention of unauthorized disclosure of the information in the system[.]" The sheriff also must oversee "[t]he timeliness and accuracy of information" and the "[p]rompt purging or sealing" of records stored in the system.[15] This system is subject to audit,[16] and the unlawful dissemination of protected information is subject to civil or criminal liability.[17]

Sheriffs have other duties specific to juveniles. Upon arrest of a juvenile for certain offenses, the sheriff must take photographs and fingerprints of the juvenile.[18] The sheriff must keep the fingerprint record separate from adult records and file a copy with the juvenile court.[19] If no charges are filed against the juvenile, "the fingerprint card, all copies of the fingerprints and all photographs shall be destroyed 60 days after fingerprints were taken."[20] Upon certain dispositions, the sheriff is to receive a copy of the disposition from the court.[21] Law-enforcement agencies, including sheriffs, are directed "to take special precautions to ensure that law-enforcement records concerning a juvenile are protected against disclosure to any unauthorized person."[22]

The General Assembly clearly has imposed record-related duties upon sheriffs. In restricting access to and the dissemination of confidential records held by a sheriff's office, the General Assembly has demonstrated further that control over sheriff office records is vested in the sheriff. As a constitutional officer, a sheriff is independent from the local government[23]; "[w]hile constitutional officers may perform certain functions in conjunction with local government, they are neither agents of nor subordinate to local government."[24] Because sheriffs "do not depend . . . upon the governing bodies of their counties or cities for their authority[,]"[25] there is a "longstanding rule that [they] are independent of their respective localities' management and control."[26] Accordingly, local government officials may not interfere with the duties or operations of the sheriff's office.[27] Because recordkeeping is a critical component of operating a sheriff's office and a sheriff's duties necessitate that the sheriff have unfettered access to the records he is responsible for maintaining, I conclude that a locality may not deny or restrict access by the sheriff to the data systems storing those records.[28]

Conclusion

Accordingly, it is my opinion that local government officials may not interfere with, hinder or prevent the sheriff's access to records of the sheriff that are stored on a server that is the property of the local governing body.

With kindest regards, I am
Very truly yours,

Jason S. Miyares
Attorney General

1. VA. CONST. art. VII, § 4; see VA. CODE ANN. § 15.2-1609 (2018).

2. Section 15.2-1609.

3. Section 15.2-1722 (2018). The sheriff also must maintain proper personnel records, id., as well as records regarding jail operations. VA. CODE ANN. §§ 53.1-116 (2018); 53.1-123 (2018).

4. VA. CODE ANN. § 16.1-301 (2025).

5. 2002 Op. Va. Att'y Gen. 151, 153.

6. See 2005 Op. Va. Att'y Gen. 147, 149 (acknowledging that a commissioner of the revenue was authorized to use the "locality's general governmental data processing system" for the storage of taxpayer information). Any such agreement, however, must take into consideration the sheriff's duty to maintain confidentiality of records to the extent required by law. Id. at 151 (noting that non-employees of the treasurer could not have unrestricted access to taxpayer records stored on locally owned systems and that those employees also are obligated to protect confidential information).

7. See 15.2-1600(B) (2018) (providing that the statutes governing the powers of localities generally may not be construed "to diminish any [constitutional] officer's powers or duties as provided by applicable state law including the power to organize their offices and to appoint such deputies, assistants and other individuals as are authorized by law upon the terms and conditions specified by such officers").

8. VA. CODE ANN. §§ 2.2-3700 through 2.2-3715 (2022 & Supp. 2025). Although the law provides numerous exemptions, the Virginia Freedom of Information Act was enacted to "ensure[] the people of the Commonwealth ready access to public records in the custody of a public body or its officers and employees[.]" Section 2.2-3700(B) (2022). "[C]onstitutional officers . . . shall have the same obligations to disclose public records as other custodians of public records." Section 2.2-3701 (Supp. 2025).

9. VA. CODE ANN. §§ 42.1-76 through 42.1-91.1 (2021 & Supp. 2025). The Virginia Public Records Act "establish[es] a single body of law applicable to all public officers and employees on the subject of public records management and preservation[.]" Section 42.1-76 (2021).

10. VA. CODE ANN. §§ 2.2-3800 through 2.2-3809 (2022 & Supp. 2025). Upon finding that "legislation is necessary to establish procedures to govern information systems containing records on individuals[,]" the General Assembly enacted the Government Data Collection and Dissemination Practices Act, which in part, seeks to ensure, as part of public agencies' recordkeeping practices, that "[a]ny agency holding personal information shall assure its reliability and take precautions to prevent its misuse." Section 2.2-3800 (2022).

11. VA. CODE ANN. § 9.1-101 (Supp. 2025) (defining "criminal justice agency" as a "[g]overnmental agency . . . which as its principal function, performs the administration of criminal justice").

12. VA. ADMIN. CODE § 20-120-40(A). "Criminal history record information" includes "records and data collected by criminal justice agencies on adult individuals consisting of identifiable descriptions and notations of arrests, detentions, indictments, informations, or other formal charges, and any disposition arising therefrom." VA. CODE ANN. § 9.1-101.

13. See VA. ADMIN. CODE § 20-120-40(B)-(E).

14. VA. CODE ANN. §§ 9.1-128(A) (Supp. 2025); 19.2-389 (Supp. 2025).

15. Section 9.1-130(1) (2023).

16. Section 9.1-131 (2023).

17. See §§ 9.1-135(A) (2023); 9.1-136 (2023).

18. Section 16.1-299(A) (Supp. 2025).

19. Id.

20. Section 16.1-299(C).

21. Section 16.1-299(B).

22. Section 16.1-301(A).

23. See, e.g., 1978-79 Op. Va. Att'y Gen. 237, 237; 1987-88 Va. Op. Att'y Gen. 161, 162.

24. Roop v. Whitt, 289 Va. 274, 280 (2015) (emphasis added) (alteration in original) (quoting Carraway v. Hill, 265 Va. 20, 24 (2003)).

25. Doud v. Commonwealth, 282 Va. 317, 322 (2011).

26. 2008 Op. Va. Att'y Gen. 44, 46. See also 1984-85 Op. Va. Att'y Gen. 15, 15 ("It has been consistently held that a constitutional officer cannot be controlled in the performance of his duties unless there exists specific statutory authority for such control.").

27. See, e.g., 1977-78 Op. Va. Att'y Gen. 466, 467 (quoting 1966-67 Op. Va. Att'y Gen. 65, 65-66) ("[A]n officer elected by the people pursuant to the Constitution is charged with the obligation to perform certain duties connected with that office and should not have his control over the office impaired by an officer appointed by a council or other local governing body."); 2008 Op. Va. Att'y Gen. at 46 ("[L]ocal governing bodies have no authority to supervise or intervene in the management and control of a constitutional officer's duties."); 2010 Op. Va. Att'y Gen. 19, 20 ("[I]n the absence of a constitutional or statutory provision to the contrary, constitutional officers have exclusive control over the operation of their offices."); 1982-83 Op. Va. Att'y Gen. 128, 129 (quoting 1975-76 Op. Va. Att'y Gen. 51, 52) ("[A] constitutional officer cannot be controlled in the performance of his duties by city or county officials unless there is specific statutory authority for such control.").

28. This conclusion should not be read to preclude the locality from performing occasional, routine system maintenance, but such maintenance must take into account the confidential nature of the records stored therein and must be performed without undue disruption to the operations of the sheriff's office.