Pima County Sheriff Chris Nanos skipped his own accountability hearing last week, sending a lawyer and a 12-page letter in his place.

The Pima County Board of Supervisors voted unanimously in March to compel Nanos to answer questions under oath, citing concerns about his disciplinary history, department management and conduct in office.

Nanos chose not to attend the meeting, instead having his lawyer, James Cool, draft a letter addressing several concerns, including his work history, department budgetary concerns, performance as sheriff and department work with federal immigration officials.

The board unanimously voted to revisit the issue at a later meeting to allow time to review the letter.

Nanos was suspended eight times while working for the El Paso Police Department, despite saying in a 2025 deposition that he had never been suspended. The letter argued that Nanos is only obligated to answer questions related to his performance as sheriff, and that his El Paso work history does not qualify.

"The Sheriff's employment history is irrelevant to the performance of his duties as an elected official subject to oversight by the Board of Supervisors," the letter said.

Nanos' employment with the El Paso Police Department ended over a dispute with a supervisor about the towing of vehicles, according to the letter, which said the supervisor recommended a three-day suspension and Nanos resigned in lieu of suspension.

The letter calls Nanos' disciplinary history, which included counseling, reprimands and suspensions, "minimal," and said he has received many decorations for his service in the decades since. Nanos was subjected to a standard background check when he applied to the Pima County Sheriff's Department and was truthful throughout the process, the letter said.

When deposed under oath in December in a lawsuit alleging that Nanos unlawfully suspended Sgt. Aaron Cross, Nanos testified that he had never received a suspension. Cool argued in the letter that Nanos misunderstood the question, given that the hearing was focused on the Arizona Peace Officer's Bill of Rights, which applies only to Arizona law enforcement — and that Nanos had never been suspended in Pima County. Cool blamed "bad faith media reports" for taking the statement out of context.

The letter said that Nanos disciplined Cross as part of a "sustained finding" that Cross violated the Hatch Act by attending political events in clothing similar to his department uniform, and that a panel recommended terminating Cross, but Nanos reduced the discipline to a suspension upon review.

"The implication that the discipline given to Sgt. Cross was somehow 'retaliatory' or 'uneven' is absurd and unfair," the letter said. "Even before the committee rejected his grievance, Sgt. Cross filed a lawsuit. Any suggestion that Sheriff Nanos 'retaliated' against Sgt. Cross by sparing him from termination (as his peers recommended) blinks at reality."

The letter also defends Nanos' discipline of former Sheriff's Department Lt. Heather Lappin, who challenged him in the 2024 race for sheriff, saying credible evidence existed that she violated department policy, though it does not specify what that evidence is. She was placed on paid administrative leave pending investigation.

Cross, president of the Pima County Deputy's Organization, and Lappin both dispute this in lawsuits, claiming they were targeted by Nanos for political reasons.

The letter also criticized the board's reference to Cross as a union leader and Lappin as a candidate for sheriff, saying Nanos treated them the same as any other employee regardless of their positions outside their official duties. It credits any "appearance of impropriety" surrounding Lappin's placement on administrative leave to an "unfortunate" change in county policy that allows county officials to run for office without leaving their jobs.

Prior to this, county employees had to take unpaid leave when running for public office. The letter said Nanos plans to meet with County Administrator Jan Lesher to discuss reverting the policy to its original form.

The board also questioned the truth of Nanos' claims that the department was not working with federal immigration enforcement officials after the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona received documents through a court order that it says undermine Nanos' statements, including one incident where sheriff's deputies reportedly took five suspected undocumented individuals seeking work to a Taco Bell and called Border Patrol agents to meet them, after which the five men were taken into federal custody. The ACLU of Arizona filed a lawsuit last year accusing the sheriff's department of repeatedly violating state public records law in connection with this situation.

According to the letter, sheriff's department employees do not inquire about immigration status or how someone entered the United States at schools, or of crime victims and witnesses, or during public encounters, unless it is relevant to a crime.

The letter also says the department no longer allows Immigration and Customs Enforcement to assign agents to the Pima County Jail, and the jail no longer accepts ICE detainees or warrants.

The letter said the department has also been working with the ACLU to locate the public records it requested.

"In general, Sheriff Nanos has promulgated policies aimed at focusing PCSD's resources on ensuring public safety and enforcing state and local laws rather than on federal immigration enforcement," the letter said. "Nevertheless, PCSD remains committed to supporting its federal law enforcement partners when they may require assistance not directly related to immigration enforcement, such as in situations involving public safety (e.g. search and rescue missions) or officer safety."

Another frequent complaint by the board has been the department's budget under Nanos' leadership, with the board refusing to approve a $45 million contract for new AI technology for the sheriff's department in part due to ongoing financial concerns.

Cool disputed this in the letter, saying the sheriff's department came in under budget in three of the fiscal years since Nanos took office. He credited a $1.3 million overrun in fiscal year 2023 to a mid-year pay increase for corrections employees approved by the board, and the overrun in fiscal year 2025 to a decrease in the budget. Cool wrote that the sheriff's department netted $6.4 million to the county's general fund across the surpluses from the past five years.

The sheriff's office is predicting a revenue surplus for fiscal year 2026.

Supervisors will discuss Nanos' responses at their May 12 meeting.

Ian Stash is a journalism major at the University of Arizona and Tucson Spotlight intern. Contact him at istash@arizona.edu.

Tucson Spotlight is a community-based newsroom that provides paid opportunities for students and rising journalists in Southern Arizona. Please consider supporting our work with a tax-deductible donation.