As election nears, Pima sheriff faces call for censure for putting GOP opponent on leave

Pima County Sheriff Chris Nanos faces a possible censure from the Board of Supervisors for placing his opponent Heather Lappin on paid administrative leave with just days to go as voting continues in the general election.

Last week, Nanos put Lappin — a a lieutenant with the Pima County Sheriff’s Department who works at the jail — on leave, taking the same action against another deputy critical of his tenure, and said he was seeking a state and federal investigation against them. He claimed his political opponents were violating federal laws, and alleged that Lappin improperly assisted a reporter in contacting an inmate at the Pima County Jail.

The move earned widespread opprobrium, and the deputy filed a federal lawsuit.

Related: Sheriff Nanos claims challenger Lappin helped reporter pay inmate for story

Nanos, the incumbent Democrat, defended his timing, and blamed Republican candidate Lappin for failing to take a leave of absence to run against him this fall. 

Some prominent Democratic leaders responded by endorsing the Lappin and rejecting Nanos. Others have notably withheld public endorsements of the sheriff.

On Wednesday, Supervisor Matt Heinz introduced a motion to censure Nanos.

“Sheriff Nanos’ reckless and vindictive action against his political rival is nothing but an attempt to smear and silence his opponent,” said Heinz, a member of the Democratic majority on the county board. He called the move “clear election interference” and said Nanos “must not be allowed to use his office to manipulate the free and fair voting process in Pima County.” 

Nanos responded, telling Heinz the supervisors should contact him any time there are “concerns or issues to discuss” and blamed Lappin for “situations that are disruptive.” 

“This is especially difficult when during this race, one of the candidates continues to work full time for the department,” Nanos wrote. He said this has “led to is a campaign that has grown ever more negative and
with each new tactic, a fresh assault on the integrity of operations
has played out.”

He wrote the board should have required Lappin to take a leave of absence to run for sheriff, arguing their decision “tested the limitations of good sense in every aspect and created a burdensome responsibility for leaders to try to manage successfully.”

“That said, we have proceeded with the best intentions in good faith to get through the campaign cycle as painlessly as possible,” Nanos wrote. “Unfortunately, that has not been the reality.” 

Last week, Lappin and Sgt. Aaron Cross — the head of the Pima County Deputies Association — were suspended and put on leave after a group of deputies displayed signs reading “Deputies don’t want Nanos” at the intersection of Tanque Verde and Sabino Canyon Roads. Cross was not dressed in his uniform, but was wearing “department-issued attire” including cargo pants, tan polo shirts, and his holstered sidearm, according to a statement from Deputy Adam Schoonover, a PCSD spokesman.

What the Devil: Seeing red lines? Sheriff Nanos gags opponent Lappin as he lets insinuations fly

According to Schoonover, PCSD officials received “multiple reports” of the deputies’ campaign effort and during an investigation, Cross was identified as one of the people involved.

“Sergeant Cross was contacted by superiors in his chain of command to remind him that he was not authorized to engage in political activities while dressed in a manner that suggested he was acting as a police officer,” Schoonover wrote, adding Cross was “warned that any future political involvement should not include portraying himself as law enforcement. It was made clear to Sgt. Cross to not look like a deputy and Cross said that he understood.” 

The next day, Cross engaged in a similar protest at another intersection, which may have violated regulations and state and federal laws prohibiting political campaigning under the color of authority, PCSD said. “We recognized that Cross’s activity represented several potential violations, all of which would be very serious,” Schoonover wrote. “As a result of these concerns, Sgt. Cross has been placed on paid administrative leave for the time required to fully investigate these matters.”

Last week, Cross filed a federal lawsuit arguing Nanos’ move violated
his First Amendment rights, and sought an injunction. A hearing is
scheduled for Monday, Oct. 28.

Cross has long been critical of Nanos. During a press conference in September, Cross said the department faces scandals and low morale because of Nanos.

“The problems plaguing the Sheriff’s Department over the last three-and-a-half year— the scandals of lawsuits, investigations, employees, arrested, inmate deaths, deputies shot, scores of deputies leaving for other agencies—are symptoms of a larger problem,” Cross said. “That problem, specifically, is personnel,” he said, including people “hand-picked” by Nanos. 

“Because what the public does not see is that internally, Chris Nanos runs this agency for fear, intimidation, retaliation, corruption and cronyism,” he said.  “Most are too afraid to speak, but the dam is beginning to break.”

Lappin, a two-decade veteran of the department, was roped in because she was “aware” deputies were making signs, and allegedly defended Cross’ actions telling officials they were protected under the First Amendment. PCSD officials wrote the “case law is clear” and Cross’ actions are prohibited by the Hatch Act.

Nanos went further, adding that Lappin “colluded with a journalist” and claimed she facilitated a payment to an inmate “in exchange  for a news story.”

Nanos did not identify the reporter in
question, nor the news outlet for which he works. Nor did the sheriff
indicate how much money may have been involved, or when the actions in
question took place.

“When it comes to the integrity of our jail
procedures, even the appearance of impropriety must be treated as a
critical issue. We have an obligation to the public that supersedes all
campaign initiatives and that is to ensure fairness and political
neutrality,” Nanos said.

In fact, John Washington, a reporter for Arizona Luminaria, communicated with Lappin to understand the process for reimbursing an inmate for the cost of a phone call from jail, part of his reporting on conditions at the Pima County Adult Detention Center. 

“Arizona Luminaria does not and would never pay for sources, interviews or information,” the news outlet said in a prepared statement last Tuesday night. Later, Luminaria published a story with a headline about being “targeted” in the dispute. Washington asked Lappin about the process to reimburse an inmate for $20, plus a $4.99 fee for a call, according to the news outlet.

Paying sources for information for news stories is unethical for reporters.

“Be wary of sources offering information for favors or money; do not pay for access to news,” reads the Code of Ethics of the Society of Professional Journalists prohibition of what’s known as “checkbook journalism.” Paying sources can lead to inaccurate reporting, with people given an incentive to embellish or even fabricate stories. While tabloid outlets are known to pay for information and the practice is not illegal, responsible newsrooms do not do so.

However, covering modest incidental expenses incurred by sources — such as a phone call, a parking garage charge, a cup of coffee — is considered acceptable by media ethicists.

“A journalist’s first obligation is to get the information, to help find
the truth,” Fred Brown, longtime chair of the SPJ Ethics Committee, told the Sentinel, speaking about Nanos’
accusations. “This isn’t like paying for an interview,” he said. “It’s a means
to get an interview. Otherwise this line of communication would not be
open.”

In his press release, Nanos added he was requesting investigations by the Arizona Attorney General’s Office and the FBI to see if Lappin broke state and federal laws in addition to Pima County merit system rules and department policies.

In his letter to Heinz, Nanos defended his decisions and said he placed Cross and Lappin on leave because of behaviors that” are suspected of falling under prohibited actions in a number of relevant places in law and policy.”

“The
timing was dictated by the urgency of concern expressed by the public
and the information discovered in our initial investigation which raised
other questions about areas of responsibility and procedure which
appear to have been neglected,” he said. Nanos argued PCSD should regulate how deputies conduct their lives away from the workplace to ensure public trust. And, he argued violations of the Hatch Act—a 1939-era law that prohibits some civil-service employees from engaging in political activity—could threaten Pima County’s federal funding.

“The timing of these events was not of my choosing, but the obligation to deal with it in a manner that protects the county, and the department is my obligation,” he wrote.

‘Painfully transparent’

Lappin’s campaign called Nanos’ move “a desperate, last-minute
unconstitutional action” and said Nanos “abused his power by forcing his
opponent to stop campaigning just as voting begins in Pima County.”

Lappin’s campaign included a statement from former Sheriff Mark Napier, who beat Nanos in 2016, only to lose to him in 2020. 

“It
is wrong on many levels and painfully transparent as a politically
vindictive action designed to denigrate a political opponent,” Napier
said. “The people of Pima County should not tolerate this abuse of
power.”

Steve Serbalik, an attorney for the Arizona Conference of Police and Sheriffs, who is representing Cross in his lawsuit, called Nanos’ move “unprecedented.”

“That
goes against everything we think the Constitution stands for,” he said.

AG asked to review PCSD

Nanos has been repeatedly placed on the back foot by members of the Board of Supervisors. 

Last September, the Board of Supervisors asked the Arizona Attorney General’s Office to conduct an investigation into the department and Nanos following accusations he failed to conduct a “timely and thorough investigation” into a December 2022 incident when a deputy was allegedly sexually assaulted by her supervisor.

The newly formed Pima County Deputies Association demanded Nanos review the actions of command staff, writing in a letter one his deputies was “actively” sexually assaulted by Ricky Garcia at a house party while her lieutenant, captain and chief did nothing. The association, led by Cross,  also alleged Nanos later promoted the chief to oversee internal affairs in to cover up his and the others’ complicity in the incident, the Green Valley News reported.

Garcia was fired and faces two counts of sexual assault in Pima County Superior Court. Meanwhile, the alleged victim filed a $900,000 claim against the county in June. The Santa Cruz County District Attorney’s Office is handling Garcia’s prosecution, and the trial is scheduled to begin in December. Following the boards’ vote, Pima County Administrator Jan Lesher asked the AG’s office to review the actions taken by Nanos, including “particular concern” about his department’s internal investigation.

The AG’s office responded in late August, and said command staff and deputies may have failed to respond when a fellow officer was in danger, may not have immediately reported the incident, possibly failed to document their involvement in reports, and a detective may have failed to properly secure evidence.

During a debate with Lappin, Nanos said the probe found “no criminal wrongdoing” by his agency.

Nanos told Tucson Sentinel in September the AG’s Office
“got it right.” He said the state’s position matches those made by Pima
County’s own attorneys, as well as Santa Cruz’s, who agreed the sheriff
has a process. 

“There’s nothing wrong here,” he said. He
criticized Supervisor Sharon Bronson, who later retired from the
position, as well as Supervisors Adelita Grijalva and Matt Heinz, for
refusing to listen to the county’s attorneys and asking for the AG’s
review. 

“You know, the board is smart and wise on a lot of
matters, but the sheriff is elected on the basis that he knows how to do
the job,” he said.

Related: Fatal consequences: Pima County Jail inmates were dying at alarming rate

During Nanos’ tenure, the Pima County jail faced a shocking rate of deaths, as detainees awaiting trial and inmates serving sentences for low-level infractions died at a rate higher than the notorious Rikers Island in New York City, where the number of fatalities was the subject of a major New York Times investigation. Nearly 60 people have died inside the Tucson jail since 2017. Many were being held on bond, but had been unable to afford bail to get out pending trial. Unlike serious felons sentenced to prison, others were serving short stints for misdemeanors — drug offenses, DUIs, thefts and assaults.

Tucson Sentinel’s extensive review of local incidents shows that a lack of training and treatment and inadequate corrections staffing are to blame, and that this disturbing pattern continued for years despite voters changing the elected sheriff in 2020 and high-profile claims about “criminal justice reform” efforts.

While 16 inmates died in New York City jails in 2021, among the daily average of 5-6,000 held mostly on Rikers, according to the Times, the Sentinel determined that 21 of the daily average of 1,500 men and women held in the Pima jail died between January 2020 and February 2022.

Nearly two years later, more jail personnel have been hired and the department has invested in scanners and made operational changes, but the jail’s physical structure remains the same.

While there hasn’t been an in-custody death at the jail since Sept. 26, 2023, activists and family members of those who died say not enough has been done, although they argue against a push to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on a new jail. Last Friday, a 59-year-old inmate who had been hospitalized for more than two weeks died during surgery.

Nanos has credited the lengthy stretch without a fatal incident to finally having staffing levels at 100 percent of authorized levels — but said he still needs more staff.

Lappin wins endorsements

In recent weeks, Lappin has chalked up endorsements from Heinz, former Supervisor Bronson, and Tucson City Councilman Paul Cunningham. Further, Dr. Richard Carmona — a former deputy and U.S. surgeon general who worked to keep Nanos from winning in 2016 — helmed a press conference in September with former and current deputies, as well as the leader of the Tucson Crime Free Coalition, against the current sheriff. 

However, Nanos has his defenders, including former Sheriff Clarence Dupnik, who called Lappin “unqualified, unprincipled, and irresponsible.”

“The Board of Supervisors has a responsibility to hold Nanos accountable – we owe it to our constituents to censure him at our next meeting,” Heinz said. Heinz added the board should request investigations from the Arizona Attorney General and the U.S. Attorney for the District of Arizona to see if Nanos violated any state or federal laws in “using his official capacity as sheriff to attempt to silence his political opposition during an election.”

As part of her administrative leave, Lappin is precluded from speaking to the public about the reasons for her administrative leave, and mandated to stay home during regular business hours, “impeding her ability to campaign,” Heinz wrote.

Nanos called it ironic that his move against Lappin was considered election inference, writing that “restrictions on certain campaign behaviors in play here are designed specifically to prevent election interference.”

He said Heinz was either confused, or “there is an agenda to make this situation into a political performance that is both untruthful and unhelpful to the citizens of Pima County.” 

He added that under administrative leave, Lappin has the same scheduled hours and the “provisions allowing for time off requests are the same. The pay is the same.”

“To suggest that being away from the workplace restricts the ability to campaign implies that campaigning was happening on duty-that would never be allowed during duty hours,” Nanos wrote, adding Lappin’s situation should have “no impact on individuals’ campaigning or other off-duty activity.”

“This sort of corruption doesn’t have a place in our political process. Not only should Nanos be censured and investigated, he should also call off his campaign for reelection,” Heinz said. “Chris Nanos has shown he doesn’t have the character to serve the residents of Pima County.”

Heinz urged the Board to consider the measure during the next meeting of the Board of Supervisors, which will take place following the election on Tuesday, Nov. 12.