Pima Supes ask Arizona AG to review perjury allegations against Sheriff Nanos

The Pima County Board of Supervisors will not attempt to remove Sheriff Chris Nanos from his position, but is asking the Arizona Attorney General’s Office to review whether he committed perjury during a deposition late last year.

In a 4-0 vote, with Supervisor Steve Christy abstaining, the board decided not to take a position on the allegation of perjury. Christy attempted to declare Nanos’ position vacant on Tuesday, but his motion died for a lack of second.

Following his motion, Supervisor Rex Scott said on the advice of legal counsel, the board should not take action against Nanos, but would instead have the Pima County Attorney’s Office send the perjury allegation to the AG’s Office. “And, the board takes no position on whether or not perjury was committed,” he said.

Supervisor Matt Heinz, who has repeatedly criticized Nanos urged his resignation, and laid the groundwork for the board to potentially oust the sheriff, seconded Scott’s motion.

Nanos did not attend Tuesday’s meetings.

The sheriff, like all of the members of the county board except Christy, is a Democrat. Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes is also an elected Democrat.

Last month, the board postponed a public discussion of Nanos’ response to a series of questions they required him to answer, including queries about his disciplinary history, how he manages the department’s budget, and whether deputies cooperate with immigration authorities.

In recent months, Nanos’ leadership at the Pima County Sheriff’s Department has been under a magnifying glass after the disappearance of Nancy Guthrie, who was reporting missing from her home on Feb. 1. While Guthrie’s fate remains under investigation, the Arizona Republic found during a December deposition in a lawsuit filed against him, Nanos said he never received discipline as law enforcement officer. However, Nanos was reportedly suspended by the El Paso Police Department, where he worked in the early 1980s before coming to Tucson to serve as a corrections officer for PCSD.

Following the Republic’s report, the board sent Nanos several questions, asking for him to explain “prior representations regarding,” his employment history in El Paso, the circumstances of his departure, the dates of his employment, and prior disciplinary history, including suspensions.

The board also asked him to discuss the “accuracy and completeness” of his official background, as well as disciplinary actions involving former deputy Heather Lappin — who attempted to unseat Nanos during the 2024 election—and union leader Sgt. Aaron Cross, a staunch critic of the sheriff. This included the “process, standards, and considerations applied in those matters.”

Arizona state law allows a county board to require any other county elected official to “make reports under oath on any matter connected with the duties of his office.” If an official refuses, they may be removed from office, with the board appointing a replacement.

Nanos also faces a recall effort led by perennial congressional
candidate Daniel Butierez, who is attempting to unseat U.S. Rep. Adelita Grijlava after losing decisively to her in November. Butierez attended the meeting, but did not speak
for the sheriff’s removal on Tuesday night.

James M. Cool, an attorney with Frazer Ryan Goldberg & Arnold LLP, responded on Nanos’ behalf to the questions last month. Along with several pages of exhibits, Cool asserted in his letter that Nanos’ employment history is “irrelevant” and said state law “does not authorize an unlimited inquisition.

“Rather, Sheriff Nanos is only obliged to report on those matters ‘connected with the duties of his office,'” he said. He added that Nanos’ duties as sheriff are defined by state law and includes “keeping the peace, arresting and detaining those suspected of criminal activity, preventing and suppressing riots or insurrection, securing county courthouses, overseeing and operating the county jail, and effectuating service of process. That is all.”

“This distinction is significant because it confirms the sheriff’s employment history is irrelevant to the performance of his duties as an elected official subject to oversight by the Board of Supervisors,” Cool said. “Likewise, giving testimony in a civil lawsuit and managing the department’s website, are not among the ‘duties of his office.’ Nevertheless, in the interest of transparency and in the spirit of cooperation, the sheriff has authorized me to respond to the board’s questions as follows.”

In early April, an outside administrative investigation said Nanos used his authority and department resources for “political gain,” and violated code of conduct rules when he launched an investigation Lappin.

Northstar Employment & Legal Solutions, an independent firm hired by the county, investigated a complaint against Nanos after Lappin, a former PCSD lieutenant, alleged the sheriff engaged in workplace bullying and retaliation after she ran against him.

Northstar reviewed Lappin’s complaint and found Nanos did not engage in bullying, writing that a “preponderance of the evidence does not support a finding” Nanos acted to create “a hostile or abusive workplace.” However, Northstar said Nanos “used his authority and department resources for political gain”

“The evidence includes considering Lt. Lappin’s political campaign in investigation and disciplinary decision making, culminating in issuing a press release that included information obtained in his capacity as sheriff,” Northstar said.

Part of the document was publicly released by the Pima County Deputy’s Organization.

During the Tuesday evening meeting, Cory Stephens—a Republican who attempted to unseat Heinz in 2024—urged the board to remove Nanos over accusations he lied under oath. Stephens, a long-time critic of the board over COVID-19 restrictions and vaccination requirements, asked three board members, as well as attorney Sam Brown and Pima County Administrator Jan Lesher if they would still be in their profession had they lied about their qualifications.

“Let me ask you a question, Matt, had you lied when you became a physician, would you be subsequent to having your medical license revoked?” she asked. “Let me ask you. Rex Scott, when you were in charge of teachers, had they lied on their application? Would they be hire-able in a school district?”

“Let me ask Sam Brown: if an attorney were to lie under oath, or not act in a fiduciary way when representing a client, would he have his state bar revoked? Probably,” he said.

And, she asked Pima Board Chair Jen Allen about a case where Nanos was accused of kicking and seriously injuring Carlos Urias while he served as a police officer in El Paso. Nanos was suspended for 15 days for allegedly injuring the man during an arrest in 1982, kicking him in the head and sending him to the intensive care unit. Urias filed charges against Nanos, but a grand jury declined to indict him, the Arizona Republic reported.

“Do you think Mr. Urias had any social justice when he was beaten by Chris Nanos and subsequently put in a coma? I think not.” Stephens said. “You guys have a duty—not an obligation—a duty to the citizens of Pima County to make this right. You need to ask yourselves, how many people have been affected by this man?”

She said Nanos answered “no” to the question about his suspensions as a law enforcement officer. “There were no mincing of words that was a clear-cut question,” she said. “Do the right thing and remove him from office.”

Bruce Wheeler, a former Democratic member of the Tucson City Council, state lawmaker and congressional candidate, argued the supervisors should not remove Nanos because voters chose him, and they had remedies to remove elected officials. “We can recall, we can vote them out of office, or we can impeach,” Wheeler said. “In the sheriff’s case, the former two options are available to us.”

“I truly believe that if three, four or five of you were vote to remove an elected official—who may have or not acted dishonorably, but who has not committed a crime—you would be contributing to a most serious decline within our democratic fabric,” Wheeler said. “Please respectfully to each of you, I urge you reprimand if you must, but let the people judge and decide this case.”

Despite refusing to remove Nanos, Scott sharply criticized Nanos’ leadership and the unanimous vote by the deputies’ union declaring no confidence in him.

“That’s very telling with regard to climate and feelings about the stewardship of the department by the front line employees,” Scott said. He said the board has received emails and letters from current and former PCSD employees “who have expressed no faith or trust in the sheriff’s leadership.”

“They’ve offered very specific examples of pettiness, favoritism, rash, decision making,” Scott said. “To be fair, we have also heard from a number of employees who expressed their support for the sheriff, but there really is only one person in that department who can bring all those people together.”

He said Nanos needs to take “not just the first step, but the second step, the third step, the fourth step, the fifth step to try and bring up the level of climate within that department.”

Scott said Nanos “met his obligations under the statute, but I think it’s important that we make the referral to the Attorney General’s Office that we did, and what is most important is the sheriff take immediate action to repair the extraordinary climate of distrust and lack of faith in his leadership.”

Cross, a staunch critic of the sheriff and the head of the Pima County Deputy’s Organization, threw cold water on Scott’s request, telling the Tucson Sentinel by text that he wouldn’t be wiling to accept Nanos’ as sheriff even if the embattled head attempted to repair his relationship with the department.

“Absolutely not,” Cross wrote. “He shouldn’t be a cop, much less leading a law enforcement agency. Also, the damage is too deep.”

Supervisor Andrés Cano referred to recall effort against Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio after the passage of Arizona’s “show me your papers” law, known as SB 1070.

“I use this example because it’s relevant to the conversation we are having tonight,” Cano said. “In Arizona, county sheriffs are elected directly by the people every four years. They are not hired by a board of supervisors, and they cannot be removed by the board in the way a city manager can appoint or dismiss a city police chief.”

“However, over the last month, this board exercised a narrowly defined oversight tool in statute to ask questions of the sheriff,” Cano said. “The responses were submitted. Those responses were reviewed, and our legal counsel has informed us regarding the limits of this board’s authority to proceed with any further action moving forward.”