accountability for a guy who has evaded accountability for decades
In Tucson, a county board has referred its own sheriff to the state attorney general on perjury allegations, setting in motion a rare and legally tangled reckoning with a man who has held public trust for decades. The case turns on a deposition, a set of old Texas employment records, and the question of whether a sworn officer told the truth about his past. Behind the procedural drama lies something more urgent: an 84-year-old woman has been missing for over 100 days, and the integrity of the investigation into her disappearance now rests on the integrity of the man leading it.
- A motion to immediately remove Sheriff Chris Nanos collapsed before it could be voted on — no supervisor would even second it, leaving the board to seek a slower, harder path.
- Texas employment records contradict Nanos' sworn testimony that he was never suspended, showing multiple disciplinary actions and a 1982 resignation to avoid termination — a gap his attorney insists is a matter of interpretation, not deception.
- The 4-0 referral to the state attorney general signals that supervisors, unable to act directly, are betting on a perjury conviction to do what they cannot — force him from office under Arizona law.
- Meanwhile, Nancy Guthrie — 84 years old, mother of a national television anchor — remains missing after more than 100 days, with over $1.2 million in reward money offered and the FBI relationship with the sheriff's office visibly fractured.
- Supervisor Matt Heinz has called Nanos a 'public safety threat who has evaded accountability for decades,' while the county bleeds money on dueling outside legal counsel — a crisis of governance layered over a crisis of conscience.
On a Tuesday night, the Pima County Board of Supervisors convened to confront a sheriff entangled in two simultaneous crises: sworn testimony that may not match the record, and a kidnapping investigation that has gone nowhere for more than three months.
The attempt to remove Sheriff Chris Nanos outright collapsed quickly. Republican supervisor Steve Christy moved to declare the office vacant, but no one seconded the motion. It was over before it began. What followed, however, carried its own weight: Democrat Rex Scott proposed referring perjury allegations against Nanos to the state attorney general, and the board passed it 4-0, with Christy abstaining.
The core dispute is straightforward in outline, if contested in interpretation. During a deposition, Nanos testified he had never been suspended as a law enforcement officer. Records from his time with the El Paso Police Department in the 1970s and 1980s show otherwise — multiple suspensions, and a 1982 resignation submitted rather than accept further discipline. His attorney argues the testimony concerned only his Arizona career. Supervisor Matt Heinz rejected that reading, pointing to what he described as a resignation in lieu of termination.
Nanos also missed a board-imposed deadline to answer questions under oath, submitting a notarized statement after the fact instead. Christy said the sheriff had already failed the test. Heinz was more direct, calling Nanos a 'public safety threat' who has 'evaded accountability for decades' and noting that a perjury conviction would ultimately compel his removal under Arizona law.
The financial toll is mounting as well. Both sides have retained outside legal counsel rather than using the county attorney's office, drawing criticism that taxpayers are bearing unnecessary costs.
All of this unfolds against the backdrop of the Nancy Guthrie case. Guthrie, 84 years old and the mother of 'Today' co-host Savannah Guthrie, vanished on February 1. More than 100 days later, there has been no public breakthrough. Over $1.2 million in reward money has been offered. Tensions between Nanos and the FBI — including a public dispute with Director Kash Patel over whether federal agents were initially kept out — have further clouded the investigation. Heinz has called on Nanos to hand the case to federal authorities entirely. The question of whether the sheriff can be trusted has become impossible to separate from the question of whether the missing woman will ever be found.
The Pima County Board of Supervisors gathered on a Tuesday night to decide the fate of Sheriff Chris Nanos, a man now caught between two separate crises: allegations that he lied under oath about his past, and a high-profile kidnapping investigation that has stalled for more than three months.
The board's attempt to remove him outright failed almost immediately. Republican supervisor Steve Christy moved to declare the sheriff's office vacant and begin a replacement process, but no one seconded the motion. It died without a vote. Yet the supervisors were not finished. Democrat Rex Scott then proposed referring the perjury allegations against Nanos to the state attorney general's office. That motion passed 4-0, with Christy abstaining. The message was clear: while they could not remove him directly, they were escalating the case to state authorities.
At the heart of the controversy lies a question of what Nanos said under oath and what the records actually show. During a deposition in a lawsuit, Nanos testified that he had never been suspended as a law enforcement officer. But documents from his time with the El Paso Police Department in the 1970s and 1980s—records first obtained by the Arizona Republic and later made public by the county—tell a different story. He was suspended multiple times. In 1982, he resigned from the El Paso department rather than accept a proposed suspension following a dispute with a supervisor. Nanos' attorney has argued that his testimony referred only to his Arizona career, where he was never suspended during his decades with the Pima County Sheriff's Department. But supervisor Matt Heinz, a Democrat, disputed that interpretation, saying the records clearly show a resignation in lieu of termination, not mere discipline.
The tension between the board and the sheriff escalated when Nanos missed a deadline to answer questions under oath. Instead of appearing in person, he submitted a notarized statement after the deadline had passed. Christy said the sheriff had already failed the board's request, moving the situation into what he called "the next phase." Heinz, for his part, has been blunt about what he sees at stake. "This is accountability for a guy who has evaded accountability for decades," he told Fox News Digital, calling Nanos a "public safety threat." Removing an elected sheriff is legally complicated—supervisors have pointed to a rarely used Arizona law dating back to the 1800s as a possible path—but Heinz noted that a perjury conviction would ultimately force him from office.
The controversy has also strained the county's finances. Both sides have hired outside legal counsel rather than relying on the county attorney's office, a move Christy said is costing taxpayers additional money. The board could still take other actions, including passing a resolution expressing a lack of confidence in the sheriff or pursuing criminal investigation through the state attorney general.
Underlying all of this is the Nancy Guthrie case, which has now consumed more than 100 days without significant public progress. Guthrie, an 84-year-old woman and mother of "Today" co-host Savannah Guthrie, disappeared on February 1. The case has drawn national attention and exposed friction between Nanos and the FBI, including a public dispute with Director Kash Patel over whether federal agents were initially excluded from the investigation. Heinz has called on the sheriff to hand over the case to federal authorities entirely. "It's ridiculous," he said. "Almost every other jurisdiction would have done so by now." The family continues to plead for help, and more than $1.2 million in reward money is now being offered for information that could break the case open. The question of who leads the investigation—and whether that person can be trusted—has become inseparable from the question of whether Nanos can remain in office.
Notable Quotes
This is accountability for a guy who has evaded accountability for decades— Supervisor Matt Heinz
It's ridiculous. Almost every other jurisdiction would have done so by now— Supervisor Matt Heinz, on whether the sheriff should hand over the Guthrie investigation to federal authorities
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Why couldn't they just remove him? He's the sheriff, not a federal judge.
Because he's elected. Arizona law makes it nearly impossible to remove an elected official without going through a process that hasn't been used in over a century. That's why they're referring it to the state attorney general instead—hoping a perjury conviction will do what a vote cannot.
So his defense is that he was only talking about Arizona when he said he was never suspended?
That's what his attorney claims. But the deposition doesn't seem to have that qualifier. And the records from Texas are very clear—multiple suspensions, then a resignation in 1982 rather than accept another one. The question is whether he was deliberately misleading or genuinely misunderstood what he was being asked.
What does this have to do with the missing woman?
Everything, in a way. Nanos is leading the investigation into Nancy Guthrie's disappearance. If supervisors don't trust his honesty, how can they trust his handling of a case that's now stalled for over 100 days? The FBI is already at odds with him over whether they were sidelined early on.
Is he likely to be convicted of perjury?
That depends on what the state attorney general finds and how they interpret his testimony. His attorney has a plausible argument about the scope of his statement, but the supervisors clearly believe he was being evasive. It's now in the hands of state prosecutors.
What happens to the Guthrie case in the meantime?
It stays with Nanos unless the board or the family pushes harder to transfer it to federal authorities. But with the sheriff under investigation for perjury, the credibility of the entire investigation is now in question. That's the real damage—not just to Nanos, but to the case itself.