Pima Supervisors Reject Censure and Demand Investigation into Sheriff Nanos Amid Tightening Reelection Race

The Pima County Board of Supervisors unanimously voted on Tuesday to request an investigation into Sheriff Chris Nanos. This decision stems from his suspension of political opponent Heather Lappin right before the November election, a move that raised concerns about potential misconduct.

Supervisor Matt Heinz initially called for a censure of Nanos, arguing that his actions constituted a misuse of authority to target a political rival. However, the board’s legal advisor, Sam Brown, informed them that they lacked the authority to censure Nanos, which could expose them to legal risks. Instead, the board opted to refer the matter to the Arizona Attorney General’s Office and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for further examination.

This incident is indicative of a growing conflict between Nanos and the Board of Supervisors. Over the past year, relationships have deteriorated, particularly because four of the supervisors were up for re-election at the time. Nanos, a Democrat, and the board are also split along party lines, with four members being Democrats and one a Republican.

Weeks before the election, Nanos placed Lappin, a lieutenant in the Pima County Sheriff’s Department, on administrative leave. He similarly suspended Sgt. Aaron Cross for allegedly violating the Hatch Act by protesting against him while in department-issued clothing. Nanos has claimed that his actions were in response to improper conduct, alleging Lappin assisted a reporter in contacting an inmate, which he viewed as a breach of protocol.

However, reactions to Nanos’ decision have been largely negative, culminating in Cross filing a federal lawsuit, which a U.S. District Court rejected when he sought a preliminary injunction. At the heart of the dispute lie allegations of election interference and political manipulation.

Nanos defended his decisions, stressing the legality of his actions. He stated through a text message to the Tucson Sentinel that suspending Lappin and Cross was not punitive, as they suffered no loss of pay or other significant restrictions. He also argued that administrative leave is a standard practice during investigations to prevent workplace disruption.

Heinz publicly denounced Nanos for his perceived abuse of power and expressed frustration over the sheriff’s absence during the board meeting. Heinz emphasized the need for transparency and accountability, suggesting that Nanos’ actions compromised the electoral process.

In response to the board’s inquiries, Brown noted that the board does not have the power to censure other elected officials, including Nanos. This statement drew further criticism from some board members, who felt unprepared for the controversy surrounding Nanos. Supervisor Steve Christy acknowledged the limitations on the board’s authority but supported Heinz’s call for some form of reprimand against Nanos, leading to an unusual moment of agreement amid previous tensions between the supervisors.

This is not the first inquiry into Nanos’ conduct by the Board of Supervisors. In September, they sought an investigation into his failure to adequately address allegations of sexual misconduct within his department. The Attorney General’s Office concluded that while there was no criminal wrongdoing, there were significant shortcomings in how command staff handled the incident.

With the election results still being tallied, Nanos holds a precarious lead over Lappin by a mere 1,595 votes. His position has weakened considerably as the vote count progresses, reflecting the contentious political climate in Pima County.

As investigations unfold, the relationship between the sheriff’s office and the Board of Supervisors remains tense. Nanos continues to defend his actions, insisting they were motivated by a need to maintain integrity and public trust within law enforcement.