A proposal to oust Pima County Sheriff Chris Nanos didn’t gain traction at the Board of Supervisors meeting on Tuesday night. However, the board did agree to refer allegations of perjury against him to the state attorney general’s office, following scrutiny of his record and his management of the Nancy Guthrie case.
Republican Steve Christie sought to have the sheriff’s position declared vacant and to initiate a replacement process right away. Yet, no one backed this motion, leading to its failure.
Democrat Rex Scott then put forward a motion to send the perjury allegations against Nanos to the state Legislature, which the board passed unanimously, though Christie abstained.
After the vote, Scott expressed concern about the lack of effort from Nanos to rebuild trust within the sheriff’s department, highlighting that the Pima County Board of Delegates had expressed no confidence in his leadership.
This latest decision wraps up a significant standoff over claims that Nanos, who oversaw the Guthrie kidnapping investigation, had lied under oath regarding his law enforcement history.
The situation has escalated following weeks of pressure from county leaders on supervisors Christie and Democrat Matt Heinz to either remove Nanos or take formal action against him.
Heinz described Nanos as a “public safety threat,” attributing the issues to a long history of avoidance of responsibility.
The controversy is rooted in allegations that Nanos misrepresented his disciplinary record as a Texas state trooper from the 1970s and 1980s. Specifically, during a deposition, he stated he had never been suspended as a law enforcement officer.
Records from El Paso, initially obtained by The Arizona Republic and later made public, indicate he had indeed been suspended multiple times and had resigned to avoid termination.
Christie noted that Nanos had missed the deadline to respond to the commission’s questions, which only heightened the urgency.
He hinted at the possibility of moving to vacate the sheriff’s position, emphasizing legal complexities around the removal of an elected official. However, there is a rarely-used Arizona law from the 1800s that might allow for this.
Heinz asserted that regardless of whether Nanos is removed, other actions could still be taken, such as passing a resolution of no confidence or referring the issue to a criminal investigation.
He pointed out that if Nanos were convicted of perjury, that could lead to his removal from office.
Both Nanos and his detractors are now employing outside attorneys, a situation that Christie argued only increases taxpayer costs.
Nanos has denied the allegations in a written statement, claiming there’s been a misunderstanding rather than perjury.
His attorney clarified that Nanos was referring only to his time in Arizona when he testified, asserting that he had never been suspended during his tenure at the Pima County Sheriff’s Department, although he had faced discipline in Texas.
A memo confirmed that Nanos had turned down a proposed suspension and left the El Paso Police Department after a disagreement with a supervisor in 1982.
However, Heinz countered this explanation, contending that records indicate Nanos resigned to avoid termination rather than due to disciplinary reasons.
Nanos didn’t respond to questions directly under oath but submitted a notarized statement after the deadline, which Heinz mentioned might still be acceptable but fails to resolve the core issues.
As for Guthrie’s disappearance, now more than 100 days ago, details remain scarce despite its national prominence and tensions between local authorities and the FBI, including a public dispute with Director Kash Patel regarding the involvement of federal agents. Heinz has urged Nanos to hand the investigation over to federal officials, calling it “ridiculous” that this hasn’t been done yet.
The family continues to seek assistance, and more than $1.2 million in rewards is being offered for information that leads to answers.
