Lee en español

The Pima County Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to require Sheriff Chris Nanos to provide a sworn report on his work history and conduct, saying he could be removed from office if he fails to comply within 10 business days.

Pressure has continued to mount around Nanos’ work history, his management of the sheriff’s department, immigration enforcement and other issues 

The board sat in executive session for more than four and a half hours before returning to public session and voting on the details of the request, including the questions he would be required to answer.

Nanos did not attend the meeting.

District 2 Supervisor and Vice Chair Matt Heinz put the item on the agenda, citing Arizona statute about requiring “any county officer to make reports under oath on any matter connected with the duties of his office.” 

“I don’t think any of us are happy about the fact that we’re in this position where we have to be talking about another elected official who has done the things that this one has done,” Heinz said after the meeting. “But I am pleased with the collaborative process and the result in these questions and a unanimous board moving forward.”

If Nanos fails to comply with the request within 10 days of its requirement, he “may be removed from office by the board and the office declared vacant,” according to the statute.

“I believe that this board will be well within our legal rights to vacate that office and remove him if he doesn’t comply with the statute,” Heinz said.

The board said the request’s deadline will coincide with the next board meeting on April 21 and the report could be written or verbal.

The board voted to question Nanos about four topics: prior representation of his employment history with the El Paso Police Department, his disciplinary actions against Lt. Heather Lappin and Sgt. Aaron Cross, his department’s cooperation with federal immigration officials and repeated instances of his department exceeding its budget. 

Chair Jen Allen, of District 3, said the board is requesting that Nanos provide a report addressing each listed issue, any actions already taken, proposed next steps and timelines for implementation. 

The board voted unanimously in March to direct outside counsel to draft legal language requiring Nanos to produce a formal report. The action follows what board members described as newly surfaced discrepancies in Nanos’ employment history and growing concerns about transparency.

In a statement to Arizona Public Media, a spokesperson for the sheriff said Nanos intends to comply with the board’s request once the scope of the report is finalized, but declined further comment, citing the legal nature of the proceedings. 

The board’s actions come amid mounting political and legal pressure on Nanos, including a recall effort, multiple lawsuits and a unanimous “no confidence” vote from the deputies’ union representing rank-and-file officers in late March.

In a statement about the no confidence vote, union leaders described  the move as “a resounding rejection of Sheriff Nanos’ leadership,” citing what they called “a documented pattern of early-career disciplinary issues” and ongoing problems within the department, including mismanagement, retaliation and declining morale. They said those conditions have created an “untenable situation” for both deputies and the community, and called on Nanos to resign to allow for a special election.

At the center of the board’s inquiry are records from Nanos’ early career with the El Paso Police Department in the late 1970s and early 1980s uncovered by the Arizona Republic.  

The investigation found that despite Nanos’ public resume claiming he worked at the El Paso Police Department until 1984, he actually resigned in lieu of termination in 1982 due to disciplinary issues.

This raised further questions about how his employment history was represented when he later applied for positions in Arizona. Those records also appear to conflict with statements Nanos made under oath in a 2025 deposition, where he said he had not received discipline rising to the level of suspension.

Union leaders and critics say the discrepancies are significant, arguing that full disclosure of that history could have affected his eligibility to serve as a law enforcement officer in Arizona.

Documents included in the board’s agenda for discussion include “false statements, and related personnel, management, internal affairs investigative, or other issues in the department.”

Nanos has faced challenges on multiple fronts. A growing recall campaign against the sheriff is being led by Republican congressional candidate Daniel Butierez, who has pointed to both the sheriff’s handling of the high-profile cases and questions about his work history as justification for the effort.

Butierez filed the recall petition on March 12. According to Arizona state law, Butierez needs to collect signatures equal to 25% of the number of votes cast in the election, in this case that’s equal to almost 122,000 signatures. The campaign is aiming for 135,000 signatures that must be submitted by July 10 — 120 days from the initial filing.

Butierez said they had over a thousand signatures as of Tuesday.

At the same time, Nanos’ leadership has drawn criticism related to the ongoing investigation into the disappearance of Catalina Foothills resident Nancy Guthrie, a high-profile case that has intensified scrutiny of the department’s operations and decision-making.

Heinz said Nanos’ handling of the Guthrie case did not play into the board’s decision. 

Butierez told AZPM that Nanos’ handling of the Nancy Guthrie case was “a big embarrassment to the community” and that reporting on Nanos’ work history compelled him to start the recall campaign. However, he said the Guthrie case did not play into his decision to seek a recall, stating the reason was Nanos’ “past and his trustworthiness and him not being transparent with it.”

Past coverage of Sheriff Nanos

The recall effort follows a narrow 2024 election in which Nanos defeated challenger Heather Lappin by fewer than 500 votes, triggering a recount.

Lappin filed a $2 million notice of claim in April 2025, alleging that Sheriff Chris Nanos took  “unwarranted disciplinary actions,” and abused the department’s own policies “for the specific purpose of influencing the election.”

Nanos placed Lappin on leave from her department job in the final weeks of the 2024 campaign for sheriff, along with union leader Sgt. Aaron Cross.

In the document, Lappin says she was told to recommend that incarcerated people in Pima County jail refuse an interview request from a local journalist, raising questions about the process for media access to inmates.

Nanos has also faced criticism and legal action for his handling of immigration enforcement. In July 2025, the ACLU filed a lawsuit against Nanos and the department, demanding response to a records request surrounding deputies’ calls for assistance to federal immigration authorities. 

This followed community observers in Tucson reporting instances where Border Patrol or ICE arrived shortly after sheriff’s deputies stopped vehicles — a pattern the ACLU said must be explained.

Sheriff Nanos maintained that his department does not proactively cooperate with immigration enforcement: “We specifically will not hold someone for immigration authorities,” he told Capitol Media Services. 

He said that while some records of interactions with Border Patrol exist — largely inherited from his predecessor, Republican Sheriff Mark Napier — they were linked to federal grant requirements and not reflective of current practice.

Creative Commons License

Republish our articles for free, online or in print.

Carolina Cuellar is a bilingual journalist based in Tucson covering South Arizona. Previously she reported on border and immigration issues in the Rio Grande Valley for Texas Public Radio. She has an M.S....