Pima County Supervisors Demand Sworn Report from Sheriff Nanos

A 5-0 vote by the Pima County Board of Supervisors on Tuesday put Sheriff Chris Nanos on a ticking clock: answer four sworn questions by April 21 or risk being removed from office. The unanimous action, taken under Arizona Revised Statutes §11-253(A), a statute dating to the territorial era, illustrates a legal mechanism available to every county board of supervisors in Arizona, including Apache County's, whenever an elected sheriff's conduct comes into question.

The board emerged from a five-hour executive session before returning to the public dais, where Chair Rex Scott read four specific questions into the record and the supervisors immediately voted to formally serve them on Nanos. Nanos was not present at the meeting.

The questions cut across several layers of escalating controversy. The first demands a full accounting of Nanos' employment history with the El Paso Police Department, specifically the circumstances of his departure and any disciplinary record. Internal affairs documents uncovered earlier this year show Nanos was suspended eight times during his five years at El Paso PD, totaling 34 days, including one suspension for excessive force. He reportedly resigned in lieu of termination in 1982, a fact that was not disclosed when he applied to join the Pima County Sheriff's Department. District 2 Supervisor and Vice Chair Matt Heinz, who placed the item on the agenda, stated from the dais: "Information with regard to the adverse history was omitted by the sheriff at the time that he applied for a position 42 years ago."

The second question concerns disciplinary action Nanos took against two department employees, Lieutenant Heather Lappin and Sergeant Aaron Cross, during the 2024 election cycle. Lappin ran against Nanos for sheriff. The board is demanding he account for whether those suspensions were politically motivated. The third question covers Nanos' communications with federal immigration officials since 2021, and the fourth addresses his department's pattern of exceeding its annual budget.

Heinz was direct about what happens if Nanos stonewalls: "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." The statute itself is unambiguous; it allows a board of supervisors to "remove him from office and declare the office vacant" if a county officer fails to comply.

That language carries weight well beyond Pima County's borders. Under ARS §11-253, any Arizona county board of supervisors holds the same authority: the right to compel a sworn written report from an elected sheriff on the specific duties of that office. Apache County residents seeking accountability from their own law enforcement leadership have access to the same tool, along with parallel mechanisms including public records requests under the Arizona Public Records Law, formal ethics complaints filed with the Arizona Sheriff's Office, and direct petitions to the Apache County Board of Supervisors requesting an inquiry.

The sheriff's office issued a statement indicating Nanos would comply, saying he "has always been transparent and will provide a report once more direction is provided." But he must now do so under oath, with an April 21 deadline, the date of the board's next scheduled meeting, marking the moment when compliance or defiance becomes a matter of public record and, potentially, official consequence.