May 14, 2026 — Tucson, Arizona, 03:05 MST.
Pima County Sheriff Chris Nanos isn’t out—supervisors voted to keep him on, even as they forwarded perjury allegations tied to his police record to the Arizona attorney general. Nanos, for now, remains at the helm of the department handling the Nancy Guthrie case.
The clock has now ticked past 100 days since Guthrie vanished, and there’s still no named suspect. Nanos told KOLD his detectives are still working the case, alongside the FBI, Arizona DPS, and multiple forensic labs. The reward? Over $1.2 million sits on the table for any tip that leads to Guthrie or helps pinpoint who’s behind it.
This pushes the dispute out of the county board’s hands and into the jurisdiction of Attorney General Kris Mayes, who leads law enforcement in Arizona. Supervisor Rex Scott called it a referral for “potential perjury”—in other words, knowingly lying under oath—and told the county administrator to handle the formal submission for the board. KJZZ
Supervisor Steve Christy, the board’s only Republican, called for declaring the sheriff’s office vacant—nobody seconded. The board then voted 4-0 for no removal action; Christy abstained. Board Chair Jennifer Allen said she wanted “true leadership that looks out for the interest of the full team.” Sheriff Nanos, speaking to KOLD, put it simply: “It is my responsibility” to address agency cohesion. Kold
The board listed the sheriff’s job record, handling of the Pima County Sheriff’s Department, staffing and budget matters, plus dealings with federal immigration authorities for discussion. They referenced A.R.S. §11-253(A), the Arizona law allowing supervisors to request a written or spoken report from Nanos.
Allegations stem from scrutiny of Nanos’ stint at the El Paso Police Department. According to AZPM, Nanos—via his attorney, James Cool—admitted to disciplinary problems back then, but claimed he could barely remember details from over forty years ago. The records listed infractions and suspensions. The last entry from 1982 stated he resigned “in lieu of termination.” AZPM
There’s ambiguity in the statute. Steve Primack, who leads the Arizona Legislative Council, told Arizona Luminaria that the law doesn’t lay out exactly how a board is supposed to request a sworn report. It might end up in court, he said, if there’s a dispute over whether just invoking the statute is sufficient.
After the vote, Scott said Nanos had fulfilled his duties under the law. Still, he flagged ongoing distrust within the sheriff’s department as a problem that hasn’t gone away. According to Arizona Luminaria, Scott’s motion avoided taking a stance on possible perjury and instead urged the sheriff to “take immediate action” to fix what Scott described as a climate of distrust. AZ Luminaria
Nanos still faces uncertainty. Under Arizona law, a county board can oust an officer for failing to submit a sworn report. On Tuesday, though, supervisors backed off—declining to pull that trigger. Now, it’s up to the attorney general’s office to decide what action, if any, follows the referral.
