As the search for Nancy Guthrie stretches into its second week, a shadow falls over Pima County Sheriff Chris Nanos. This isn’t the first time Nanos has faced intense public scrutiny, a pattern of controversy stretching back over a decade, raising questions about leadership and the pursuit of justice.
The weeks before his 2024 re-election – secured by a mere 481 votes – were marked by decisive, and some say questionable, actions. Opponent Heather Lappin, a lieutenant at the Pima County Jail, was abruptly placed on administrative leave, silenced by an order forbidding her to discuss the reasons behind the decision. It was a move that would soon become a familiar tactic.
Sergeant Aaron Cross, a vocal critic and head of the Pima County Deputies Organization, suffered the same fate. He’d publicly campaigned against Nanos, holding a sign declaring “Deputies Don’t Want Nanos,” when he too was sidelined. Nanos alleged a breach of department rules, claiming Cross campaigned while in uniform – a claim Cross vehemently denied.
Cross fought back, filing a federal lawsuit alleging Nanos deliberately suppressed his voice, hindering his ability to participate in public discourse. The suit asserted a violation of Cross’s First Amendment rights, a chilling claim against the county’s top law enforcement official.
Lappin soon followed suit, launching her own legal challenge. She alleged a “retaliatory campaign” orchestrated by Nanos and PCSD leadership, designed to derail her candidacy after she announced her intention to run for sheriff. The accusations painted a picture of a sheriff determined to eliminate opposition at any cost.
The lawsuit detailed a series of escalating actions. Lappin, experienced in teaching a crucial course, was suddenly disciplined for fulfilling a routine coverage request – a request she’d handled numerous times before. The timing, immediately after declaring her candidacy, was no coincidence. She was then reassigned to the detention center, a move presented as a “lateral move” but perceived as a clear demotion.
The pressure intensified when Lappin shared an image of Cross’s protest on her campaign website. She was promptly placed on leave again. A press release followed, accusing her of “colluding” with a journalist and attempting to pay an inmate for a story – allegations she firmly denied. Lappin’s internal affairs referrals skyrocketed, a stark contrast to her previously unblemished record.
Shortly after Nanos’s narrow victory, the Pima County Board of Supervisors, deeply concerned, unanimously called for an independent investigation into potential criminal wrongdoing during the election. The case was handed to the Arizona attorney general’s office, but ultimately, no charges were filed.
The controversies didn’t end there. In 2022, a PCSD deputy alleged a sexual assault by a supervisor at a holiday party. While the supervisor was acquitted of the most serious charge, he was convicted of attempted sexual assault and sexual abuse. The handling of the investigation itself drew criticism, with accusations that Nanos hadn’t adequately probed the department’s response, triggering another attorney general’s investigation.
That investigation found no criminal wrongdoing, but noted potential violations of department rules. The Board of Supervisors demanded Nanos publicly clarify the state of the internal investigation, a demand for transparency in the face of mounting concerns.
Even earlier, in 2015, as newly appointed chief of PCSD, Nanos faced a federal investigation into the misuse of civil asset forfeiture funds. A chief deputy was indicted for wrongly using hundreds of thousands of dollars, and funds were reportedly spent on a commercial kitchen for the deputy’s niece’s café. Nanos himself wasn’t charged, but the investigation cast a long shadow.
Nanos responded with a fiery rebuke of the FBI, questioning their motives and challenging their investigative methods. He publicly questioned the agency’s integrity, a bold move that ultimately didn’t prevent him from losing the subsequent election, only to win again in 2020.
Now, with the Guthrie investigation underway, familiar accusations are resurfacing. Nanos is accused of delaying FBI involvement and sending crucial evidence to a private lab in Florida, bypassing the FBI’s headquarters. He vehemently denies these claims, insisting the Florida lab was utilized from the start and that collaboration with the FBI is ongoing.
He maintains that the decision to use two labs won’t create conflict, and that both facilities are equipped to handle the evidence. He also asserts he contacted the FBI promptly, dismissing any suggestion of obstruction. Despite repeated attempts, Nanos has not responded to further requests for comment, leaving a community grappling with unanswered questions and a growing sense of unease.
