1. The immigration policy, in two revisions
The Jail produced its intake policy for undocumented immigrants twice over — once as
Revision #1, dated December 19, 2024, and once as Revision #2, dated
January 17, 2025. The two are word-for-word identical except in one clause. Revision #1
holds a person for federal immigration authorities “for a period not to exceed forty eight (48)
hours, not to include holidays or weekends.” Revision #2 deletes those last five
words, leaving a flat forty-eight-hour ceiling. One month apart, the hold got shorter.
At intake an officer must ask whether the
person was born outside the United States and whether they are a citizen of another country. If so,
a supervisor makes an immigration alien query to federal immigration enforcement’s
Law Enforcement Support Center through the national crime database, and records the result
twice in Virginia’s Local Inmate Data System — once when the query goes out, once when the
answer comes back. The policy cites Va. Code § 19.2-83.2 and § 53.1-218 as its
authority.
Source: RRJ Policy 3.3.5, “Inmate Intake — Undocumented Immigrants,”
Revisions #1 and #2, produced by the Jail in response to a February 17, 2026
records request. Read in full from the production.
2. No 287(g) agreement — and a claim of compliance
Asked in July 2025 whether the Jail held any written agreement authorizing detention solely for
immigration enforcement past the forty-eight-hour detainer window, the FOIA officer answered in one
line:
“Rappahannock Regional Jail currently has no 287(g) MOA agreement.”
Santina Thelen, July 18, 2025. The request came from the partner of a man who
remained in custody on an immigration hold after his criminal charges were dismissed two days earlier.
Neither is named here.
Seven months later the City of Fredericksburg asked the Jail to confirm
its immigration practices complied with the new Governor’s order. The Superintendent wrote back:
“Our policy and activities are compliant with applicable Virginia law (which is cited
in our policy) and with Governor Spanberger’s Executive Order # 10.”
Colonel Kevin A. Hudson, February 17, 2026, to the Fredericksburg Interim
Police Chief, at the City Manager’s request. From the same production.
True, and close to weightless. Executive Order 10, January 17, 2026,
rescinded a predecessor’s order — it lifted a mandate to cooperate rather than imposing a limit
(Governor of Virginia).
Executive Directive 1, February 4, 2026, ordered four state agencies to end
their 287(g) agreements and reaches only those agencies, not regional jails
(Governor of Virginia,
Bolts). A
regional jail complies with EO 10 by doing nothing. The binding change came in April 2026, when
the General Assembly restricted local agreements with immigration authorities — amended before
signature so that jails may still honor detainers
(Bolts).
3. The immigration holds, counted
Also produced: “Charges By County Of Charge By Date — ICE,” printed
February 19, 2026 — thirty pages of 2025 bookings charged by federal immigration
enforcement, with book date, release date and charge, names blacked out at source. The holds are
days, not weeks; the charge is most often a federal misdemeanor.
Our reading of the 2024 booking log puts a number on the practice: 242 bookings carried an
immigration hold, median stay about 54 hours — a forty-eight-hour policy in the
aggregate. The booking log is here.
4. Electronic monitoring: the criteria, and the refusal to explain them
Thirteen published eligibility requirements for the Electronic Monitoring Program, among them: no
pending charges, no violent felony ever, no drug-distribution conviction in ten years, a sentence of
twenty days to twelve months, residence in a funding locality, and “Must be legally allowed to
be employed in the United States.”
Printed at the bottom of the criteria sheet itself:
“*Jail policy prohibits staff to discuss ineligibility reasons*”
And in the form letter sent to people who are turned down:
“It is the policy of the Jail not to discuss the reasons for ineligibility. Any
requests regarding this matter will be returned unanswered.”
Published criteria, a form rejection, and a written policy against telling you which criterion you
failed. Asked separately how many people the program has served, the FOIA officer answered:
“This is not a statistic that is tracked. All EMP participants must be court
ordered/referred.”
Source: RRJ Electronic Monitoring Program eligibility requirements and form denial
letter, produced by the Jail; and Santina Thelen’s response letter of
January 31, 2025. Read in full from the productions.
5. Two contracts, and who owns the data
The Jail does not competitively bid its own electronic-monitoring contract. It buys off another
county’s, a cooperative purchasing agreement with Track Group, Inc. running
July 1, 2022 to June 30, 2024 with four one-year renewal options, after
which it reverts to month-to-month until formally renewed. One clause deserves to be read twice:
“Customer shall be the owner of any and all GPS tracking data generated and recorded
pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. Customer grants Provider a perpetual and unlimited license to
use any such GPS tracking data”
The jail owns every monitored person’s location history and licenses it to the vendor,
perpetually and without limit. The ankle device samples location every two seconds, carries
voice, tightens to thirty-second tracking on violation, and pairs with a check-in app with biometric ID
and video, installed on “the offender’s personal, or Agency provided phone.” Victim
notification: $2.00 per app user per day; analytics $1.25 down to $0.50 per device
per day.
The second contract is older and simpler. In December 2015 the Authority signed
Contract #2015-SCS with Esitech Security Group for the jail’s security control
system: $976,430.00 over two years, followed by a five-year maintenance agreement at
$59,200 a year, $296,000.00 in total.
Sources: RRJ’s Track Group agreement under Loudoun County Contract
#RFQ 475785, and RRJA Contract #2015-SCS, both produced by the Jail. Pricing tables were
transcribed from a scanned copy; figures cited here are the ones legible without ambiguity.
6. A grievance about a weapon, returned unanswered
On June 11, 2025 a man filed an electronic grievance from a housing-unit tablet. Its
summary field read “Threat.” He wrote that his cellmate had made a weapon, was
threatening him with it, and that when he tried to report it privately to an officer he was cut off
and disciplined for the late shower he had taken in order to speak alone. He asked to be moved. His
own words are his and are not reproduced here.
Twelve days later, at 9:03 in the morning, the grievance was printed, answered and closed in a
single timestamped action:
“Improperly Filed; As you failed to provide electronic request form numbers and/or a
hard copy inmate request form number with your grievance to show that you attempted to resolve this
issue at the lowest level prior to submitting a grievance.”
“Returned; This matter was turned over to appropriate Secuirty Staff for investigation.
No further action by the Ombudsman.”
Same entry, same minute: serious enough to refer to security, defective enough to return
unanswered. The Jail’s returned-grievance form lists fourteen such reasons, among them that the
Superintendent’s appeal decisions “are final and not grievable issues.”
Set that beside the Authority’s own reporting to its Board: 1,915 grievances filed and
1,206 not investigated — 63.0 percent — in the fiscal year.
The grievance numbers are here.
Source: the redacted electronic grievance record produced by the Jail, and the
Jail’s Returned Grievance Form OPER-0019. Quotations are the Jail’s response text only;
the misspelling of “Security” is in the original. Booking numbers, housing assignments,
device identifiers and the writer’s narrative are withheld.