Supervisors referred allegations of perjury by Pima County Sheriff Chris Nanos to the Arizona Attorney General’s Office, following weeks of scrutiny on his work history and handling of the disappearance of Nancy Guthrie.
Supervisor Steve Christy attempted to call for a vote to remove Nanos from office during Tuesday night’s meeting. His motion to declare the office vacant and to begin a replacement process received no second and failed.
Supervisor Andrés Cano said he was following legal advice to refer the allegations to the state Attorney General, citing Nanos’ position as an elected official.
“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,” Cano said.
People are also reading…
In March, the Arizona Republic published records from the El Paso Police Department that showed Nanos resigned in lieu of disciplinary action in 1982. His public resume said he left the Texas agency in 1984 until he updated the document on the Pima County Sheriff’s Department website the day after those records were published. The records also showed he was disciplined repeatedly during his six years working for El Paso police, for offenses ranging from being chronically late to using excessive force against a detained man.
Following that reporting, the board mandated a sworn report from Nanos, asking that he respond to four topics: concerns about his work history, the suspension of two employees during the 2024 election, including his former political opponent Heather Lappin, the extent his department works with federal immigration authorities and concerns his department has been overspending its budget.
Embattled Pima County Sheriff Chris Nanos faces a possible state investigation after supervisors voted to send claims of alleged perjury to the Arizona Attorney General’s Office.
In order to obtain Nanos’ April 21st report, the board referred to an Arizona law that states county boards can mandate any county officer to provide reports related to their official duties. Supervisor Matt Heinz questioned whether Nanos’ response, a 23-page report sent on his behalf from attorney James Cool, qualified as a report under oath in several media statements.
Heinz did not comment on the attempt to remove Nanos from office at Tuesday’s meeting but voted in favor of Scott’s motion to send concerns to the state's top prosecutor. He later released a statement on social media, saying saying referring the allegations allows “the appropriate authorities to determine the facts and pursue any action they deem warranted.”
Christy abstained from Scott’s motion, while Cano, Board Chair Jen Allen, and Scott, a majority of the five-seat board, expressed disappointment in Nanos’ leadership and called on him to rebuild trust with the public and within the department.
“What is most important is the sheriff take immediate action to repair the extraordinary climate of distrust and lack of faith in his leadership,” said Scott.
Nanos responded to Scott’s comments in a statement from PCSD following Tuesday night’s meeting.
“Sheriff Chris Nanos was elected to lead the Pima County Sheriff’s Department and focus on public safety in our community, and that remains his priority. Sheriff Nanos has heard Supervisor Scott’s concerns and agrees that if there are issues within the agency, it is his responsibility to address them. He plans to meet with union leadership to discuss concerns and determine a constructive path forward.”
Nanos did not comment on a potential investigation by the state attorney general.
The Pima County Deputy’s Organization, a union formed in 2023 that has released several no-confidence votes in Nanos, issued a statement that expressed support for the attorney general’s involvement .
“While the union and nearly all of the department would have celebrated his removal, we are pleased he may finally be held accountable for his lies under oath,” it reads.
PCDO is also headed by Sgt. Aaron Cross, who is the main plaintiff in the case where Nanos allegedly made a false statement about his work history.
During the 2024 election, Cross was placed on leave after Nanos alleged he campaigned for rival candidate Heather Lappin while in uniform, violating the Hatch Act. Cross then filed a lawsuit against Nanos, claiming the discipline was a violation of his First Amendment rights.
In Nanos’ response to the board, Cool wrote that reports of Nanos being dishonest during his deposition in the Cross v. Nanos case were “bad faith,” and claimed the line of questioning misled the sheriff to believe he was only supposed to answer for his career at Pima County.
“It is 100% correct that Sheriff Nanos was never suspended during his four decades of decorated and faithful service with the Pima County Sheriff's Department ("PCSD"). However, Sheriff Nanos was suspended more than forty years ago while employed by El Paso Police Department. In the context of his live deposition, Sheriff Nanos did not understand the question related to discipline with a different agency not governed by the Arizona Peace Officer's Bill of Rights,” Cool wrote.
A spokesperson for the Arizona Attorney General’s Office declined to comment on whether the office has received or accepted the board’s request to investigate the allegations.
