AG: Policy Breaches Found, But Sheriff’s Dept Faces No Criminal Charges in Deputy’s Sexual Assault Case

The Arizona Attorney General’s office has concluded its investigation into the Pima County Sheriff’s Department, finding “no criminal wrongdoing in the investigative process.” However, significant concerns were raised regarding the command staff’s response after a deputy was allegedly sexually assaulted by her supervisor in December 2022.

The AG’s report criticizes the command staff for their failure to act during a situation where a colleague was endangered. There were notable omissions in reporting and documentation, with a detective potentially neglecting to secure vital evidence.

Sheriff Chris Nanos believes the report effectively clears him of wrongdoing. The inquiry was prompted by the Pima County Board of Supervisors due to alleged delays in investigating the December incident. The board sought a thorough review following claims that Nanos did not conduct an adequate internal investigation.

The newly established Pima County Deputies Association has demanded a reevaluation of the command staff’s actions, alleging that a deputy was “actively” assaulted by Ricky Garcia during a party. They criticized Nanos for promoting the chief responsible for the alleged cover-up.

Garcia has been dismissed from his position and is facing two counts of sexual assault in Pima County Superior Court, with his trial set to commence in December. Presently, the alleged victim has filed a claim for $900,000 against the county.

Following the board’s request for the AG’s review, Pima County Administrator Jan Lesher expressed particular concern for the handling of the internal investigation into Nanos’ department. On August 29, AG’s Chief Counsel Nicole Klingerman noted that although Nanos’ agency had no criminal wrongdoing, there were concerns about violations of departmental orders.

Klingerman highlighted the command staff’s inadequate response to the incident, revealing that not only was assistance limited, but several deputies failed to report their involvement appropriately. This lapse raises questions about accountability within the department. Nanos’s opponent, Heather Lappin, criticized him for being hypocritical in his training critiques, asserting her unblemished record in the wake of the investigation.

Despite Nanos declaring the findings as a clean slate for his department, critics contend that the AG’s report documents multiple policy violations among the command staff. Sgt. Aaron Cross, president of the Pima County Deputies Association, expressed skepticism regarding Nanos conducting an internal investigation independently, emphasizing the lack of prior documentation preservation efforts.

Nanos reaffirmed his stance that the AG’s office supported his claims of proper case management and clarified his intention to wait for Garcia’s trial conclusion before proceeding with internal investigations. The debate is far from settled, with ongoing scrutiny from both the public and the deputies’ association regarding the department’s crisis management and accountability practices.

As the situation unfolds, the AG’s office has extended an offer to review any internal investigations the Sheriff’s Department may conduct moving forward, addressing the Board of Supervisors’ ongoing concerns about the integrity of the departmental processes.