The Pima County Board of Supervisors voted Tuesday to delay discussion of a report Pima County Sheriff Chris Nanos sent in during the meeting on his work history and conduct, saying supervisors needed time to review it.
People packed the Board of Supervisors hearing room Tuesday morning, trickling out as the board ran through an extensive agenda. Speakers called for scrutiny into Nanos’ actions during the call to the audience.
“It is in fact your job to keep track of all elected officials. That’s why we’ve been desperately hoping you will hold the sheriff accountable because if you’re really concerned about the Nancy Guthrie investigation, then you should be desperately hoping that they will investigate what’s wrong with our sheriff,” a speaker said earlier in the morning.
County Administrator Jan Lesher announced that the board received the report from Nanos at around 2 p.m. and that it was released publicly upon its receipt. Nanos did not attend the meeting.
The report request included questions on four topics: his 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.
The board finalized the questions and request during the previous board of supervisors meeting on April 7 when they voted unanimously to require Nanos to provide a sworn report on his work history and conduct, saying he could be removed from office if he failed to comply.
Written by Nanos’ attorney, James Cool, the response addressed all matters in order, first responding to questions about Nanos’ prior employment. He said while Nanos had disciplinary actions including counseling, reprimands and suspensions in El Paso, he was never suspended during his service with the Pima County Sheriff’s Department, and his prior testimony about not being suspended was in the context of Arizona’s Peace Officer’s Bill of Rights.
Regarding disciplinary actions against Lappin and Cross, the report said the process for both followed established department and county policies, and the decisions were upheld after independent review by the county human resources director and grievance committee.
Cool added that civil litigation involving Cross and Lappin were ongoing, therefore “the Sheriff must be mindful of the impact his public statements in response to this inquiry could have on the litigation.” He also said he was “quite certain the Board would not wish for the public nature of its inquiry to create potential liability for
the County in these cases where none currently exists.”
Nanos denied working with federal immigration authorities, saying that he has implemented policies to limit cooperation with U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement, such as not allowing ICE agents at the Pima County Adult Detention Center, not accepting ICE detainers and declining 287(g) certification for deputies.
Lastly, Nanos’ attorney addressed budgetary concerns by saying the department has operated under budget in three of the last five fiscal years, with minimal overruns in the other two.
The board moved to discuss the report at the next supervisors meeting May 12. At the April 7 session, Chair Jen Allen, of District 3, said the board asked Nanos to address each listed issue, any actions already taken, proposed next steps and timelines for implementation. At the upcoming meeting, supervisors may weigh whether Nanos’ report adequately answers those questions.
Angelica Carrillo, the public information officer for the Sheriff’s Department said Nanos “has fully responded to questions submitted by the Pima County Board of Supervisors” and that the “matter involves pending civil litigation and therefore will not be discussed at this time.” She added that “Sheriff Nanos remains available to meet with the Board” and “he welcomes continued engagement in the interest of transparency and maintaining public trust.”
District 4 Supervisor Steve Christy, the board’s only Republican, also moved to release a 65-page report commissioned by the board that found Nanos “used his authority and department resources for political gain.” An excerpt from the report was posted by the Pima County Deputy’s Organization, the union representing rank-and-file officers, on April 13 but the full report hasn’t been released.
Chair Jen Allen instead motioned to continue the item until May 12. All supervisors except Christy voted to pass Allen’s motion, tabling the issue until the next supervisors’ meeting.
Read more
Pima County supervisors demand sworn report from Sheriff Nanos or face removal
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… Keep reading
The report follows mounting scrutiny
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 in late March.
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.
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 needs to collect nearly 122,000 signatures by July 10.
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.” The lawsuit is ongoing.
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.
Republish our articles for free, online or in print.
