The Pima County Board of Supervisors met amid heightened scrutiny of Sheriff Chris Nanos, and an attempt to immediately remove him from office failed when the motion lacked a second. Instead, the board voted to forward allegations of perjury to the state attorney general, a move that shifts potential criminal review to state prosecutors. The meeting capped weeks of internal friction, public criticism and renewed attention to how the sheriff has led the high-profile investigation into the disappearance of Nancy Guthrie, whose case has attracted national coverage.
Republican supervisor Steve Christy proposed declaring the sheriff’s office vacant and starting the removal process at once, but without a second the effort could not proceed. Democratic supervisor Rex Scott then put forward a motion to refer the alleged false statements under oath to the state attorney general, which passed by a 4-0 vote with Christy abstaining. Throughout the session, officials pointed to an erosion of trust inside the sheriff’s department and to a unanimous vote by the Pima County Deputy’s Organization expressing no confidence in leadership.
What the board decided and why it matters
The board’s choice to decline an immediate ouster while referring allegations for criminal consideration reflects both political caution and legal complexity. Removing an elected official is not straightforward; supervisors explored a seldom-used Arizona statute dating to the 1800s as a theoretical path, but practical and legal hurdles remain. In the meantime, the referral sends the issue to prosecutors who can investigate whether sworn testimony met the legal standard for perjury. Supervisors also discussed alternative remedies such as a formal resolution expressing no confidence, and emphasized that a criminal conviction would ultimately compel removal from office.
The allegations and the historical record
At the heart of the controversy are statements the sheriff made in a deposition for a lawsuit, where he asserted he had never been suspended as a law enforcement officer. County-released documents from the El Paso Police Department tell a different story: records indicate multiple disciplinary actions and a 1982 departure characterized as a resignation in lieu of termination. The county first made those records public after reporting by the Arizona Republic. Supervisors and critics say the discrepancy raises serious questions about the accuracy of the sheriff’s sworn testimony and whether it amounted to perjury.
How the sheriff has responded
Sheriff Nanos has pushed back, and his legal team argues his deposition responses referred only to his tenure in Pima County, where he was never suspended. Counsel also confirmed that he resigned from the El Paso agency in 1982 rather than accept what was described in a memo as a proposed suspension following a dispute with a supervisor. The sheriff declined to sit for an in-person sworn session before the board, instead submitting a notarized written statement after the deadline; supervisors indicated that late submissions might be considered but do not erase the underlying questions.
Broader fallout tied to the Nancy Guthrie investigation
The controversy has unfolded alongside the ongoing probe into the disappearance of Nancy Guthrie, whose case began on Feb. 1 and has now passed 100 days with few public breakthroughs. The matter has strained relations between county law enforcement and federal partners, producing public friction with the FBI and its director, and prompting calls from supervisors like Matt Heinz for the sheriff to cede the investigation to federal agents. Observers have also criticized aspects of the department’s handling of the case, including decisions about investigative assignments and leadership oversight.
Costs, counsel and next steps
As the dispute escalated, both supervisors and the sheriff retained outside counsel rather than using the county attorney, a choice that officials say has driven up legal expenses for taxpayers. Meanwhile, more than $1.2 million in rewards has been offered for information in the Guthrie disappearance, and the family continues to appeal for public assistance. With the perjury referral now in the hands of the state attorney general, the legal process will determine whether criminal charges move forward and whether political remedies or formal disciplinary actions follow.
