Probe into deputy’s complaints finds Pima Sheriff Nanos abused authority for ‘political gain’

An outside administrative investigation found Pima County Sheriff Chris Nanos used his authority and department resources for “political gain,” and violated code of conduct rules when he launched an investigation into former deputy Heather Lappin — who attempted to unseat Nanos during the 2024 election. 

Northstar Employment & Legal Solutions, an independent firm hired by the county, investigated a complaint against Nanos after Lappin, a former lieutenant in the Pima County Sheriff’s Department, alleged Nanos engaged in workplace bullying and retaliation after she ran against Nanos.

The document was posted online by the Pima County Deputy’s Organization on Thursday, and the Tucson Sentinel confirmed the document was valid with Pima County officials.

“I agree with the findings,” said County Supervisor Matt Heinz.
“The sheriff abused his authority for personal political gain and must
be held accountable.” 

Lappin told the Sentinel she was pleased the report confirmed the Democratic sheriff and members of his senior command “abused
their authority for political gain during the 2024 election.”

“I know the bullying complaint was not sustained and all of that is still under a pending lawsuit,” Nanos said in a text message on Thursday night. “Any ancillary policy violations will be looked into once I receive the full report and have a chance to hear from the county administrator.”

Nanos said the document published on social media by the deputy’s organization is a memo from Jan Lesher, the Pima County administrator. “There is an investigative report that I’ve not seen, yet all of this falls under an attorney/client privilege that somehow was released.” 

“The county administrator is looking into how that happened,” Nanos said. “For me… the memo you have is all I have. I will continue to work with the county administrator on all of this… but I still have to follow the law and rules of the court when commenting on any ongoing litigation.”

In October, just weeks before the election Lappin—who ran against Nanos as a Republican—was suspended from her post at the Pima County jail because she, in the framing of Nanos’ department, “colluded with a journalist” to pay an inmate for a news story.

In fact, John Washington, a reporter for Arizona Luminaria, communicated with Lappin to understand the process for reimbursing an inmate for the cost of a phone call from jail—totaling $20 and a $4.99 fee—as part of his reporting on conditions at the Pima County Adult Detention Center. Journalists don’t violate any ethical codes by reimbursing sources for basic minor expenses necessary to report a story.

As part of her suspension, Lappin was precluded from speaking to the public about the reasons for her administrative leave, and mandated to stay home during regular business hours.

In a press release at the time, Nanos added he was requesting investigations by the
Arizona Attorney General’s Office and the FBI to see if Lappin—a two-decade veteran of the department—broke
state and federal laws in addition to Pima County merit system rules and
department policies. Lappin later sued, filing a $2 million claim which accused Nanos of launching retaliatory investigations against her.

PCSD also suspended Sgt. Aaron Cross, president of the Pima County Deputy’s Organization, for allegedly wearing “department-issued” clothing during two campaign events for Lappin. Nanos faced censure for his actions from Heinz, and he defend himself by
arguing Lappin’s decision to run while employed at the department was
“disruptive.” 

Despite this, Lappin’s campaign nearly unmoored the sheriff from his position, and he won by a razor-thin margin, earning just 481 votes after a recount.

Based in Tucson, Northstar is run by Alexis Sharpe, an attorney who specializes in civil litigation and employment law. That outside firm submitted the report on March 19 and Lesher signed the memo on March 23. 

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. 


The group also said Nanos “violated applicable code of conduct rules.” 

“By including confidential information in a press release about the reasons he placed Lt. Lappin on paid administrative leave for political gain, he did not maintain rules about courtesy and civility,” Northstar wrote. 


“The sheriff’s actions were found to be inconsistent with the listed policies; however, the Sheriff is not subject to these policies as an elected official.”

Report a ‘vindicaton’

In a text message to the Sentinel, Lappin said she was “pleased” the investigation confirmed Nanos and members of senior command “abused their authority for political gain during the 2024 election.”

“But it is concerning that it was allowed to occur throughout the election cycle, and only now—17 months after the election—is the public finally learning of Nanos’ misconduct,” Lappin wrote Thursday night. “If the county had acted on any of my numerous requests for it to intervene and stop Nanos’ clear misconduct, the people of Pima County would have been fully informed when they cast their votes for sheriff this last November,” Lappin said. “Had the people known the truth of the matter, I believe that I would have overcome the fewer than 500-vote margin and would now be serving the people as their sheriff.”

“Regardless of whether Nanos’ retaliation against me changed the election results, his abuse of authority and misuse of department resources are deeply concerning,” Lappin added. “Integrity and public trust are the fundamental requirements of leadership, particularly for the top law enforcement officer in the County. Nanos disregarded these basic principles to mislead the public for his own political gain,” she said. 

“My primary goal in running for sheriff was to ensure that the Pima County Sheriff’s Department remained rooted in ethical conduct and genuine service to the people of Southern Arizona. Nanos clearly violated that trust,” Lappin wrote. “Although I am no longer a candidate, I will continue to stand with the brave men and women of the department and insist that this type of behavior is never tolerated in our community’s law enforcement. I hope the county will act accordingly in light of the independent investigation’s findings.”

Lappin left the agency to work for another police department in Arizona.

Cross said the report is a “vindication and great news for Heather Lappin.”

Cross has long criticized Nanos’ leadership and leads one of PCSD’s five union organizations. During the 2024 election, Cross was among the current and former deputies who urged voters to cast their ballots for Lappin during a press conference featuring Dr. Richard Carmona — a former deputy and U.S. surgeon general who worked to keep Nanos from winning in 2016.

“Unfortunately, Nanos gets to decide his own punishment and those of his senior commanders, so nothing will be done,” Cross told the Sentinel on Thursday. “Between lying about his background, lying under oath, and these substantiated violations he should resign immediately,” Cross said.

Supes prepare to question Nanos

Nanos already faces a nascent recall effort, and he may be required to
appear before the Pima County Board of Supervisors to answer questions
about his background after reporting showed he lied about his work
history. If he refuses to appear, the board could remove him from
office.

Nanos has faced withering scrutiny for his leadership at PCSD after the disappearance of Nancy Guthrie who was reporting missing from her home on Feb. 1 prompting a months-long investigation.

While Guthrie’s disappearance remains under investigation, the Arizona Republic found that during a deposition Nanos allegedly said that he was never suspended while working for the El Paso Police Department, where he worked in the 1980s before coming to PCSD. Nanos made the statements as part of a lawsuit filed by Cross over his suspension.

The Arizona Republic reported Nanos was suspended eight times as a young officer in Texas for serious issues, including excessive force, improperly discharging a weapon, and off-duty gambling.

Following that story, Heinz asked the Board to discuss the issue and seek legal advice about how to deal with Nanos’ work history and “apparent related false statements” and related “personnel, management, internal affairs investigative, or other issues in the department.”

The board voted unanimously to instruct an outside attorney, asking for a report on the law before the next board meeting, set for April 7. At that meeting, they’ll be prepared to vote whether or now to tell Nanos to appear before them.

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.

Before the board could remove Nanos, he would have to be provided the opportunity to answer questions — and state law only give the board the ability to oust the sheriff if he refuses, not if they disapprove of his responses. The board of nearly all Democrats — just one of the five supervisors is a Republican — are laying the foundation to require the Democratic sheriff to give such a report, and potentially oust him from office if he refuses.

Heinz said during the meting he was “disturbed by and saddened by” the Republic’s report on Nanos. “You can’t lie on your job applications, you can’t lie under oath,” he said. “The sheriff’s history in Pima County for 42 years seems to be based on fraud.”

Heinz reiterated other issues that occurred under Nanos’ tenure, including a RICO investigation, and a 2024 probe — launched after a request from the supervisors — by the Arizona Attorney General into how command staff responded the night a female deputy was sexually assaulted by a fellow deputy.

Nanos told the Sentinel he would speak to the Board of Supervisors during the next meeting. “They’re going to hear from me and I’ll  answer their questions,” he said. He bristled at accusations he was over budget, and noted that both the AG and the U.S. Attorney’s Office did not find problems with how he managed his department

‘No confidence’

Meanwhile, Nanos faced a “no confidence” vote from the Pima County Deputy’s Organization, the union headed by Cross.

Last month, the organization released a vote from its 300 members. 241 members voted “No Confidence & Resign,” while 65 abstained. Not one of the union’s members chose “Confidence & Continue,” the group said.

There are currently 506 commissioned deputies, and 486 corrections officers, along with 410 professional staff, according to figures provided by Nanos.

Cross said this is the second time Nanos has faced a “no confidence” vote. One in early 2024 showed nearly 98 percent of the organization’s members had “no confidence” in Nanos’ leadership.

Cross said he received “a lot” of calls after the Arizona Republic story, and said based on the reporting Nanos never should never have been hired.

Nanos began as a Pima corrections officer in 1984 and advanced through the ranks through August 2015 when he was appointed sheriff, according to his updated resume.

“It’s no secret that I have a problem with the man for harming for family, but I would say that doesn’t affect the 241 deputies who also voted no confidence,” Cross told the Sentinel in March.

He added the Pima County Deputy’s Organization has largely overtaken the Pima County Deputy Sheriff’s Association as the organization representing commissioned officers. 

“We have a personal issue, but that doesn’t impact that deputies have problems with how this department has been run,” Cross said.