Critics are crying foul over Democrat Sheriff Chris Nanos’ placement of his Republican challenger, Lt. Heather Lappin, on a punitive administrative leave just weeks before the upcoming election. He also sidelined Sergeant Aaron Cross, president of the Pima County Deputy’s Organization. The move followed Cross’s second off-duty appearance at an intersection holding a sign that read, “Deputies don’t want Nanos.”

Cross was initially warned against wearing “department attire,” and allegedly “portraying himself as an officer,” but was placed on paid leave, along with Lappin, after Cross appeared a second time with the sign. Cross denies the allegation, stating that he was not in uniform. Lappin, who has been critical of Nanos’ leadership, was also placed on leave the same day for alleged collaboration on her campaign against Nanos.

Lappin argues that the move was a tactic to disrupt her campaign, especially since her work phone was confiscated. Lappin told Arizona Luminaria, “I don’t even know why I’m on administrative leave. I believe this is an excuse to take my phone. I think they’re trying to find something.”

A Pima County Sheriff’s Depart Internal Affairs investigation released a memo stating: “Although Sergeant Cross was off duty, he was dressed in department-issued attire, including green BDU cargo pants, a tan polo shirt, tan boots, and he was equipped with a weapon in a holster, a magazine pouch, and handcuffs, clearly recognizable as law enforcement. This behavior constituted a direct violation of his commander’s orders, by appearing equipped like a law enforcement officer who is associated with official duties. This activity raised a number of concerns regarding specific regulations in the Sheriff’s Department, Pima County, and both state and federal law that prohibit political campaigning while representing yourself as a department member under the color of authority.”

The memo continued, “It is known that Sergeant Cross is collaborating with Lieutenant Heather Lappin on her campaign.” The statement said that Lappin admitted that she knew signs were being made but believed these activities were protected under the First Amendment and did not violate department rules.

Lappin issued a statement directly to the Arizona Globe confirming that she was placed on leave. She advised, “I have been directed to not discuss the reasons, so the only information is provided by the Sheriff and his administration.” She continued, “This appears to be yet another attempt to suppress the opinions of both myself and numerous other employees that are hoping for positive change and leadership, undermining freedom of speech and open discourse. I have done nothing wrong other than challenge him in an election. His list of victims who have experienced his retribution and vindictiveness is very long. I am just one of many.”

Part of the justification for Lappin’s forced leave was due to a social media post showing Cross holding a sign that read, “Deputies don’t want Nanos.”

After Lappin was placed on leave and ordered to surrender her phone, Sheriff Nanos announced he would request an investigation by the Arizona Attorney General’s Office and the FBI.

Steve Serbalik, attorney for Lappin and Cross, commented to the Green Valley News, “Without addressing specifics, if members are facing retaliatory actions for protected speech, it would be unconstitutional and contradict everything law enforcement represents.” He emphasized, “Regardless of anyone’s politics, constitutional rights must be respected. We look forward to commenting further once the admonishments imposed by Sheriff Nanos are lifted.”

According to the media release, Nanos alleges that Lappin colluded with a journalist, giving him access to inmates for interviews and “provided him with access to deposit funds into the inmates’ accounts.” Nanos claimed that even the “appearance of impropriety” must be treated as critical.

Despite a gag order on Lappin and Cross, Sheriff Nanos participated in a KGUN 9 interview, denying any political motivation for placing his political rival on leave. The gag order prevents Lappin and Cross from discussing the matter, leaving Nanos to speak to various media outlets to offer his perspective. The one-sided gag order raises concerns about fairness, with critics arguing that the Sheriff is using his position to unfairly shape the narrative while limiting his opponents’ right to respond.

Nanos has faced extensive pushback from The Pima County Deputy’s Organization and the Pima Board of Supervisors. The Deputy’s Organization, which advocates for its members’ rights, interests, and working conditions, has previously enjoined legal action against Sheriff Chris Nanos. Sargeant Cross, the organization’s president, previously filed a lawsuit claiming that Nanos violated his First Amendment rights. The conflict stemmed from an incident where Cross spoke out against Nanos on a local radio show, criticizing the Sheriff’s influence over the deputy organization.

Shortly after, the Sheriff’s Department began an internal investigation over the allegations, which Cross and his legal team viewed as retaliatory. Nanos’ attorneys have argued that the investigation was conducted appropriately, and the Sheriff has denied any wrongdoing, seeking to have the case dismissed under claims of immunity. Cross sees the latest action as more evidence of retaliation. Additional lawsuits filed against the Department, including complaints about management and budgetary concerns, reflect ongoing tensions and disputes involving leadership and departmental practices.

The Pima County Board of Supervisors also raised concerns over Sheriff Chris Nanos’ handling of an internal investigation into a sexual assault case involving a deputy. The Board voted to demand that Nanos clarify the investigation’s status, drawing criticism for alleged delays. During a recent meeting, the Board expressed frustration after Nanos declined to attend, prompting further calls for transparency.

Supervisor Matt Heinz, who has been outspoken about the issue, described Nanos’ approach as a “failure of leadership,” emphasizing the need for accountability. Heinz said that Nanos declining to appear was jarring and concerning.

In a recorded interview, Heinz said, “I was really dismayed to see the Sheriff didn’t show up. If he was taking an allegation of rape from one of his staff anywhere near as seriously as Heather Lappin and made up campaign activities, we wouldn’t be in this situation.” Heinz continued, “I don’t think he’s taking this seriously, I think he’s being a bully and worst of all he is attacking a political rival with his power as her employer.”

Supervisor Steve Christy said, “We’ve giving him opportunity after opportunity to come before the board in public and to address these potential violations, if nothing else to clear his department and his actions, and he chooses not to, which just adds to the whole atmosphere that he’s hiding something,”

Nanos maintains that the investigation into Lappin and Cross is ongoing, insisting that his actions are not politically motivated. He has repeatedly stated that further details would not be disclosed until the case is resolved, citing legal protocols.

This is not the first time Nanos has placed a political opponent on administrative leave. He took the same actions in 2016 against challenger Sgt. Terry Staten. Details about that incident are available here.

A peaceful protest against Nanos and supporting Lappin and Cross occurred earlier today, October 18, 2024, under the banner “Stand Together to Stand Up to Nanos.”