April 24, 2026
“He’s A Bad Cop”: Sheriff Leading Nancy Guthrie Investigation May Lose His Job
Apple Podcasts 
Spotify 
Castro 
RSS Feed The sheriff who has become the national face of the Nancy Guthrie investigation, is now legally defending himself against growing accusations of misconduct. Pima County Sheriff Chris Nanos is under fire for not being honest about his past work history, including 8 reported suspensions while working as an officer in El Paso. Among the allegations, that he nearly beat a handcuffed suspect to death with a flashlight. A process to remove the sheriff could begin as early as mid-May, as the investigation into Guthrie’s disappearance continues.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
00:00:02
Speaker 1: Hey, the folks, it is Friday, April twenty fourth, and he is a bad cop who made bad decisions. He has lied and perpetrated a fraud for decades upon the community. Those words spoken about the guy who's in charge of the Nancy Guthrie investigation, and those accusations aren't just coming from anywhere. With that, welcome to this episode of Amy and TJ. Robes. It's important to first say we don't have a significant and we haven't had a significant update about the actual Guthrie investigation in a while.
00:00:37
Speaker 2: That's right, we have heard nothing for eighty plus days in counting. We remember Nancy Guthrie went missing on February first, and while yes, the investigation continues, it is certainly wound down a bit in terms of the amount of officers and folks looking into this case and where she may be. And so the focus has truly shifted in a lot of ways in the past couple of weeks away from where is Nancy Guthrie? And two, what the heck is going on with Sheriff Chris Nanos?
00:01:08
Speaker 1: And people know that name and know it well by now, don't they, Robes. Chris Nanos, you have seen his face plenty over the past several months, became one of the most famous cops in the country. You could argue because of that. Because of that case, now he has for a time, Robes from the very beginning, all eyes were on this case. Of course, police officers, the departments are going to get scrutiny. He's the head of the department that's in charge. He's going to get scrutiny. It was about how much he was putting out. He wasn't putting out enough. He was putting out too much. He's not giving enough. So criticism of the investigation is one thing. What we're talking about now, Robes, is a criticism of him, his character and his work history.
00:01:45
Speaker 2: Yes, and his character and his work history are front and center because there have been allegations that they have been growing, and now he has been forced to provide a legal response to these allegations.
00:01:57
Speaker 3: Which include basically his.
00:01:59
Speaker 2: Prior bad acts is what they're calling them, including the use of for successive force, illegal gambling, habitual tardiness, making arrests, dereliction of duties. There is even an allegation that he beat up a suspect who was handcuffed in the back of his vehicle with a flashlight so badly that that suspect had to go to the emergency room.
00:02:23
Speaker 1: Did he respond to that one directly?
00:02:24
Speaker 2: Not?
00:02:25
Speaker 3: I didn't see that one, not that I know of.
00:02:26
Speaker 1: But there's a lot of stuff he has responded to, and we should say here first of all, we'll get into it a little more. But he is denying most of these allegations against him. But robes and not just coming from random places, and not just coming from media. They're not coming from random sources. The one we're talking about now that's got attention comes from someone who might be in charge or have a hand in Sheriff Nano's fate. There is conversation robes. They are reviewing him his work history and his work future, possibly with Pima County. But Matthew Hines, doctor Matthew Hines is the vice chair of the Pema County Board of Supervisors.
00:03:02
Speaker 2: He went nuclear, Yeah, he fled out. Called him a bad copy. He is a bad cop. He is a bad guy, and right now that board of Supervisors is investigating him for lying under oath about his previous work history. He didn't recall ever being suspended. They've already turned up. They say, while he worked in the El Paso Police Department, he was suspended as many as eight times, miss thirty seven days of work at least, they say for these suspensions. So to say that you don't recall or you haven't been suspended under oath a clear violation there. So this has all come to light. And now because they say he lighted on his application just to be a part of the Pema County Sheriff's department, that his entire professional career is in jeopardy. They are looking to potentially remove him as sheriff and to fire him from his job, so to speak, a job that has been at the center of the most probably I would say, one of the big stories of the entire year, the search for Savannah Guthrie's mom, missing eighty four year old Nancy Guthrie. He was the guy in charge, and he's being accused of not working well with the FBI, among a lot of things.
00:04:12
Speaker 1: The guy that was in charge, he is still in charge, don't they. They haven't point they haven't used the word cold case yet, No, not yet pushing back against that. So he is still the guy who is in charge. But it was relevant Robes to hear Matthew Hines go on, he did a recent interview and robes the words he used, and like, you know what, to be fair to Natos, we are talking about a job he had back up until nineteen eighty four.
00:04:38
Speaker 3: Correct.
00:04:38
Speaker 1: I didn't realize he had been with p MC county so long.
00:04:40
Speaker 2: Yeah, so we're talking from the seventies to the eighties, basically looking back that far into his police resume, so to speak. But those were some tumultuous years, it appears.
00:04:51
Speaker 1: So that was they say, Robes. So eighteen eighty four is when he left El Paso, right, the l Paso Police are correct. He has hamitted that he left because he was possibly facing another disciplinary action. So he has already at least admitted to that, and there is some history there, but roads he's trying to recall he said some things that happened forty years ago, and why is that relevant of the job he's doing now. I guess that's a legit argument. Things I did forty years ago in my career, How does that have an impact on me being a good cop? Here? And particularly on this case.
00:05:26
Speaker 2: That's almost verbatim what his attorney has said in response to these allegations. In fact, I'll give you the exact quote from his attorney. Whatever the sheriff did or did not do before being elected is necessarily unrelated to his performance of the duties of his office.
00:05:43
Speaker 1: That might be true. The problem is they're saying you lie to even get the job that you have now, so you shouldn't even be here. Matthew Hines, the vice chair of that board of supervisors, he put it this way. We shouldn't even know his name. Should didn't even know the name Nanos in this community's He accused him of perpetrating perpetrating a fraud on my community for the past forty years. He said he lied to become a cop. He doesn't even have the right to be in the job.
00:06:16
Speaker 2: And if you look at the evidence that they presented, he might have a point.
00:06:21
Speaker 3: Look, I don't know. Both both sides could be true.
00:06:23
Speaker 2: Both both things that you're hearing from the board and what you're hearing from his attorney could both be true. And perhaps this is all obviously coming to a head, reaching a boiling point, because there hasn't been any answers. No one knows what happened to Nancy Guthrie. Ever, there's so much finger pointing. You should have, you could have, you haven't, Why didn't you all of this? And so yes, the buck stops at the sheriff, truly, and if you look and you just pull back the covers a little bit, there's a whole lot of stuff to look at.
00:06:53
Speaker 1: And Rhodes, the stuff they describe in his past, it's almost remarkable that anybody could remain a cop having this many disciplinary issues. That is a little remarkable. Now there's context to them, things we don't understand, and you need to leave room for that. But he answered Robes. They gave him a huge questionnaire, did they not? Yeah, would you say twenty something pages?
00:07:17
Speaker 2: Well, he submitted a twenty two page document to the Board of Supervisors in response to their questions. But Hines and other board members have said they're not satisfied with the answers that they received. First of all, they say there was he wasn't giving them under oath, which was part of what they demanded. They want to actually have him sworn in and say what he's saying in defense of himself under oath, so that he could be held accountable if he's lying.
00:07:42
Speaker 1: Does anything. Isn't that A nice way to say we think you're lying is that you know what come in we'll do.
00:07:48
Speaker 2: You don't know if yeah, this paperwork is fine and all, but we want to actually see you do it in the proper way where it's legally binding and there would be consequences if you're proven to be telling falsehoods. And I actually think that's fair. The man who's the top cop, who's leading the biggest investigation in this country right now, he should be held to a certain level of scrutiny. I do think that's appropriate. And if he's going to defend himself, why not defend yourself under oath.
00:08:16
Speaker 1: And that's what we're waiting on now. On May twelfth, they now have a hearing, set a meeting right for the board robes in which they are going to go over and review what he has given them in all of these answers. I don't know if that day and you tell me we've been looking into this robes, if you have seen somewhere, are we going to get an answer? Are we going to get action on May twelfth? I don't know.
00:08:39
Speaker 2: It's being reported that that is the day where they may eat, they may actually hold a vote and they may vote a no confidence vote. They don't know if that means they can actually kick him out of the job at that point, if they start the legal process of removing him from that job. But it does appear that this is headed for a vote as to whether or not they want to remove him as sheriff or not.
00:09:00
Speaker 1: Well, that's a okay, you call it slap on the hand, But Robes, that's a pretty big public admonishment of somebody, a no confidence vote. He doesn't want that either. But Rose, in the midst of all this going on with Nancy Guthrie, we should not be talking about nanos. We should never have been talking about nanos throughout, but the focus shifted several times because of what people saw as missteps. A lot of people still can't believe, not that you haven't solved the crime, but you don't even have a solid lead. It feels like in a lot like what is happening now? This is us. I'm sure things are going on behind the scenes, but the scrutiny on a case like this robes where every single eyeball is on you every single day looking for any little thing to report.
00:09:43
Speaker 2: And these aren't just little things. The Arizona Republic, which is the local paper. They're reported on all of his suspensions. They're not minor. Oh yeah there, and look, this may have happened thirty forty years ago, but it still calls in to question someone's character, and especially when someone's leading something this signalficant and needs to have his officers who report to him respect him. This causes all sorts of disruption in that chain of command.
00:10:07
Speaker 1: That's a very good point. We'll stay here, folks. We will get more into exactly what he's accused of doing during all those suspensions when he was a cop, before he ever got to Arizona. Stay with us.
00:10:28
Speaker 2: Welcome back everyone to this episode of Amy and TJ. Where we are we had hoped to be talking perhaps about a break or the latest and the Nancy Guthrie investigation, but instead the focus and the investigation has turned into the man responsible for heading everything up, the sheriff, Chris Nanos. We've heard his name, we've seen his face. He's been the face of the Nancy Guthrie investigation, and now he is the focus of his own investigation. He is literally fighting for his job right now as the Board of Supervisors. It looks as if as early as next month and a few weeks will be voting on whether or not to keep him as the top cop fair in Tucson. And many things have been discovered, including perhaps some dishonesty, lying under oath, talking about his previous work history, what actually allowed him to get the job he's holding. Now, A lot of folks are saying, dude, you have a very very marred pass that you did not disclose, and in fact you lied about you know.
00:11:28
Speaker 1: It's not just about the past. Is they actually think he kept it from them. Correct, he kept it from them, and not even kept it from him, but lied when I asked direct questions about things. Lied in order to get a job. And that's why I thought that was a strong statement by the supervisor, saying he perpetrated a fraud for forty years on my community.
00:11:46
Speaker 3: His attorney said he misunderstood the question.
00:11:48
Speaker 1: Now that part is I found a little bit hilarious. I get it. This was a point. This was the one about the under oath one.
00:11:56
Speaker 2: Oh, I've never been suspended while I've worked for Pima County.
00:12:00
Speaker 3: That's what I meant.
00:12:01
Speaker 2: I didn't mean that I've never been suspended in the entirety of my police career because actually in al Paso, yeah, I was suspended eight times. He left that part out because he misunderstood. He didn't think they wanted to know about his whole career, just his career at PM accounting.
00:12:15
Speaker 1: Can I leave some space for that being the case? Right?
00:12:18
Speaker 3: I was dripping in sarcasm, but can I.
00:12:19
Speaker 1: Leave some space for that being possible?
00:12:22
Speaker 3: He hoped that they were asking him, but that question was.
00:12:24
Speaker 1: Asked, Yeah, how it was asked. I don't have the verbatim. Who knows how it came off, what kind of pressure he was under, And I'm just trying to leave space ropes for the possibility being asked a question about disciplinary action and he said no never.
00:12:38
Speaker 2: Okay, Well, according to the Arizona Republic, who did some deep dives into this, and certainly this is the same information that the board is reviewing as well. But he was once suspended and we kind of touched on this before the break for beating up a suspect to his handcuffed in the back of his police vehicle with his flashlights so much that he actually suffered blood loss had to be admitted to the Hot spit All and He was suspended for that, I believe for fifteen days without pay.
00:13:06
Speaker 3: He was also just that's the worst one. Oh, that is I started with the worst.
00:13:10
Speaker 2: He was also disciplined for using profanity, insulting women, making threats. He was caught gambling on a pool game by undercover cops. He was disciplined for showing up late late to shifts, So he is dereliction of duties. So these are all pretty significant, and look eight times.
00:13:29
Speaker 3: That can you imagine.
00:13:31
Speaker 2: In any position you've ever held, being suspended eight times and keeping your job.
00:13:35
Speaker 1: This was early in his career.
00:13:37
Speaker 3: Okay, early in my career.
00:13:38
Speaker 2: I can't imagine being suspended once, let alone eight times, and keep not only keeping my job, but then being able to move to another jurisdiction, rising up the rank so quickly that I become sheriff of the whole damn thing. With that kind of sordid history, that is that should be looked into.
00:13:53
Speaker 1: It sounds like a nurse. You know, all the cases.
00:13:56
Speaker 3: We hear about priests or teachers.
00:13:58
Speaker 1: Behaving badly in one place, and there's not a good enough system in place that they are allowed to check on you when you're trying to get hired somewhere else, like there are rules about exchanges of information, like they might not have been able to Hey, heads up, Pema County. This guy used to be with us and I don't even know.
00:14:16
Speaker 2: It's almost like just moving the trash around, and that's what they kind of. There's a I forgot the name. They use it for teachers when you have a teacher who you just passed the trash. I think it's something like that, say, I hate to say, it's the same with priests.
00:14:27
Speaker 1: We're not calling him trash by way, I'm not using a phrase.
00:14:30
Speaker 2: That is a phrase that is used where they just don't want to deal with it, don't want to deal with the paperwork and perhaps even the publicity if they were to actually announce what this person did. So they let people resign without actually having to call them out on their bad behavior and push them to another jurisdiction or another area and let those are.
00:14:49
Speaker 3: That community deal with it.
00:14:50
Speaker 2: That is something that we have seen happen time and time again in several industries that actually are of the utmost importance, Like you said, nurses, teachers, priests, police officer.
00:15:00
Speaker 3: Certain doctors.
00:15:01
Speaker 2: These are people, yes, doctors, these are people we trust with our lives, our livelihoods, and this seems to perhaps have happened in Arizona with Sheriff Chris Nandos. If this is all proven to be.
00:15:13
Speaker 1: True, and again, try to leave space for this thing, Rodes, is that something he's what looking at him now, he's in his sixties, maybe right.
00:15:20
Speaker 3: I mean he's on the older side of things.
00:15:22
Speaker 1: He might have been in his twenties, early twenties, late twenties or whatever. I am. What I'm saying is there is space to leave for someone over forty fifty years of their life becoming a different individual, not making the same mistakes. That's possible, but that's not what we're talking about. The point here is did you lie to us? And yes?
00:15:43
Speaker 2: And if you're somebody who's willing to lie in a position that he's in to be the sheriff, I don't think that those two things can can jibe.
00:15:49
Speaker 3: I don't think you lose trust.
00:15:51
Speaker 2: And once you lose trust from the public, from perhaps your your fellow officers who are looking up to you, and certainly from the board members who are overseeing your department, I don't know how you effectively lead or actually investigate a case.
00:16:02
Speaker 1: He's not talking about.
00:16:03
Speaker 3: Yeah, he's distracted at the very least right now.
00:16:06
Speaker 1: And again, he's not lying about something unrelated to his job. This is directly related to and has an impact on his ability to do his job. That's why it does rise.
00:16:18
Speaker 2: Yes, he is being accused of hiding, deliberately hiding and lying about disciplinary actions that were taken against him as a police officer. That is a problem. So we're talking about fraud and perjury. Those are serious crimes, and you don't want to know that the guy leading up this investigation is accused of both.
00:16:39
Speaker 1: You know, even if he wasn't leading up this investigation, they would be trying to get rid of him, right, I mean, I know he's high profile, we're talking about him here, but the actions we're talking about, or the stuff is being alleged robes is bad stuff. No matter what case, if we never heard his name, this would still he's being held accountable. Not just because of this case. It brought screwed me, yes, it brought it, but but row this stuff stands as you can't lie about your job. It seems like forty years though some of that seems like wow.
00:17:11
Speaker 2: But just eight times babe, if it was one disciplinary action or maybe even two.
00:17:16
Speaker 3: Eight.
00:17:17
Speaker 2: When someone shows you who they are, believe them. I just I really do think that you can. You can allow people to make mistakes when you're young. I absolutely get that, But this to me seems different than that.
00:17:28
Speaker 1: I have no I'm taking no issue with what you just said. His answers are out there for all to see. He is denying a lot of what's being suggested, but also robes he has admitted, yes, he has had the suspension in his past. That's the update on the Nancy Guthrie investigation.
00:17:45
Speaker 3: Which is so sad.
00:17:46
Speaker 2: I'm thinking about poor Savannah, like to think, Wow, now they're just talking about the sheriff who is supposed to be finding my mom and even recognizing or realizing that perhaps any of this that's happening now is taking away from the efforts of finding where Nancy is. That's going to be really tough for her to be reading and looking at it this point, because all they want, all anybody wants, is answers into what happened to Nancy Gouthriine. So we'll of course stay on top of this story. Yeah, we wish the developments were coming sooner, and they were focused on Nancy and not on Sheriff Nanos. But this is where we are, and of course we'll keep our eye on that hearing that is set to take place mid May. All right with that, everyone, we always appreciate you listening to us, I mean me Robach alongside TJ. Holmes.
00:18:28
Speaker 3: We will talk to you soon
Speaker 1: Hey, the folks, it is Friday, April twenty fourth, and he is a bad cop who made bad decisions. He has lied and perpetrated a fraud for decades upon the community. Those words spoken about the guy who's in charge of the Nancy Guthrie investigation, and those accusations aren't just coming from anywhere. With that, welcome to this episode of Amy and TJ. Robes. It's important to first say we don't have a significant and we haven't had a significant update about the actual Guthrie investigation in a while.
00:00:37
Speaker 2: That's right, we have heard nothing for eighty plus days in counting. We remember Nancy Guthrie went missing on February first, and while yes, the investigation continues, it is certainly wound down a bit in terms of the amount of officers and folks looking into this case and where she may be. And so the focus has truly shifted in a lot of ways in the past couple of weeks away from where is Nancy Guthrie? And two, what the heck is going on with Sheriff Chris Nanos?
00:01:08
Speaker 1: And people know that name and know it well by now, don't they, Robes. Chris Nanos, you have seen his face plenty over the past several months, became one of the most famous cops in the country. You could argue because of that. Because of that case, now he has for a time, Robes from the very beginning, all eyes were on this case. Of course, police officers, the departments are going to get scrutiny. He's the head of the department that's in charge. He's going to get scrutiny. It was about how much he was putting out. He wasn't putting out enough. He was putting out too much. He's not giving enough. So criticism of the investigation is one thing. What we're talking about now, Robes, is a criticism of him, his character and his work history.
00:01:45
Speaker 2: Yes, and his character and his work history are front and center because there have been allegations that they have been growing, and now he has been forced to provide a legal response to these allegations.
00:01:57
Speaker 3: Which include basically his.
00:01:59
Speaker 2: Prior bad acts is what they're calling them, including the use of for successive force, illegal gambling, habitual tardiness, making arrests, dereliction of duties. There is even an allegation that he beat up a suspect who was handcuffed in the back of his vehicle with a flashlight so badly that that suspect had to go to the emergency room.
00:02:23
Speaker 1: Did he respond to that one directly?
00:02:24
Speaker 2: Not?
00:02:25
Speaker 3: I didn't see that one, not that I know of.
00:02:26
Speaker 1: But there's a lot of stuff he has responded to, and we should say here first of all, we'll get into it a little more. But he is denying most of these allegations against him. But robes and not just coming from random places, and not just coming from media. They're not coming from random sources. The one we're talking about now that's got attention comes from someone who might be in charge or have a hand in Sheriff Nano's fate. There is conversation robes. They are reviewing him his work history and his work future, possibly with Pima County. But Matthew Hines, doctor Matthew Hines is the vice chair of the Pema County Board of Supervisors.
00:03:02
Speaker 2: He went nuclear, Yeah, he fled out. Called him a bad copy. He is a bad cop. He is a bad guy, and right now that board of Supervisors is investigating him for lying under oath about his previous work history. He didn't recall ever being suspended. They've already turned up. They say, while he worked in the El Paso Police Department, he was suspended as many as eight times, miss thirty seven days of work at least, they say for these suspensions. So to say that you don't recall or you haven't been suspended under oath a clear violation there. So this has all come to light. And now because they say he lighted on his application just to be a part of the Pema County Sheriff's department, that his entire professional career is in jeopardy. They are looking to potentially remove him as sheriff and to fire him from his job, so to speak, a job that has been at the center of the most probably I would say, one of the big stories of the entire year, the search for Savannah Guthrie's mom, missing eighty four year old Nancy Guthrie. He was the guy in charge, and he's being accused of not working well with the FBI, among a lot of things.
00:04:12
Speaker 1: The guy that was in charge, he is still in charge, don't they. They haven't point they haven't used the word cold case yet, No, not yet pushing back against that. So he is still the guy who is in charge. But it was relevant Robes to hear Matthew Hines go on, he did a recent interview and robes the words he used, and like, you know what, to be fair to Natos, we are talking about a job he had back up until nineteen eighty four.
00:04:38
Speaker 3: Correct.
00:04:38
Speaker 1: I didn't realize he had been with p MC county so long.
00:04:40
Speaker 2: Yeah, so we're talking from the seventies to the eighties, basically looking back that far into his police resume, so to speak. But those were some tumultuous years, it appears.
00:04:51
Speaker 1: So that was they say, Robes. So eighteen eighty four is when he left El Paso, right, the l Paso Police are correct. He has hamitted that he left because he was possibly facing another disciplinary action. So he has already at least admitted to that, and there is some history there, but roads he's trying to recall he said some things that happened forty years ago, and why is that relevant of the job he's doing now. I guess that's a legit argument. Things I did forty years ago in my career, How does that have an impact on me being a good cop? Here? And particularly on this case.
00:05:26
Speaker 2: That's almost verbatim what his attorney has said in response to these allegations. In fact, I'll give you the exact quote from his attorney. Whatever the sheriff did or did not do before being elected is necessarily unrelated to his performance of the duties of his office.
00:05:43
Speaker 1: That might be true. The problem is they're saying you lie to even get the job that you have now, so you shouldn't even be here. Matthew Hines, the vice chair of that board of supervisors, he put it this way. We shouldn't even know his name. Should didn't even know the name Nanos in this community's He accused him of perpetrating perpetrating a fraud on my community for the past forty years. He said he lied to become a cop. He doesn't even have the right to be in the job.
00:06:16
Speaker 2: And if you look at the evidence that they presented, he might have a point.
00:06:21
Speaker 3: Look, I don't know. Both both sides could be true.
00:06:23
Speaker 2: Both both things that you're hearing from the board and what you're hearing from his attorney could both be true. And perhaps this is all obviously coming to a head, reaching a boiling point, because there hasn't been any answers. No one knows what happened to Nancy Guthrie. Ever, there's so much finger pointing. You should have, you could have, you haven't, Why didn't you all of this? And so yes, the buck stops at the sheriff, truly, and if you look and you just pull back the covers a little bit, there's a whole lot of stuff to look at.
00:06:53
Speaker 1: And Rhodes, the stuff they describe in his past, it's almost remarkable that anybody could remain a cop having this many disciplinary issues. That is a little remarkable. Now there's context to them, things we don't understand, and you need to leave room for that. But he answered Robes. They gave him a huge questionnaire, did they not? Yeah, would you say twenty something pages?
00:07:17
Speaker 2: Well, he submitted a twenty two page document to the Board of Supervisors in response to their questions. But Hines and other board members have said they're not satisfied with the answers that they received. First of all, they say there was he wasn't giving them under oath, which was part of what they demanded. They want to actually have him sworn in and say what he's saying in defense of himself under oath, so that he could be held accountable if he's lying.
00:07:42
Speaker 1: Does anything. Isn't that A nice way to say we think you're lying is that you know what come in we'll do.
00:07:48
Speaker 2: You don't know if yeah, this paperwork is fine and all, but we want to actually see you do it in the proper way where it's legally binding and there would be consequences if you're proven to be telling falsehoods. And I actually think that's fair. The man who's the top cop, who's leading the biggest investigation in this country right now, he should be held to a certain level of scrutiny. I do think that's appropriate. And if he's going to defend himself, why not defend yourself under oath.
00:08:16
Speaker 1: And that's what we're waiting on now. On May twelfth, they now have a hearing, set a meeting right for the board robes in which they are going to go over and review what he has given them in all of these answers. I don't know if that day and you tell me we've been looking into this robes, if you have seen somewhere, are we going to get an answer? Are we going to get action on May twelfth? I don't know.
00:08:39
Speaker 2: It's being reported that that is the day where they may eat, they may actually hold a vote and they may vote a no confidence vote. They don't know if that means they can actually kick him out of the job at that point, if they start the legal process of removing him from that job. But it does appear that this is headed for a vote as to whether or not they want to remove him as sheriff or not.
00:09:00
Speaker 1: Well, that's a okay, you call it slap on the hand, But Robes, that's a pretty big public admonishment of somebody, a no confidence vote. He doesn't want that either. But Rose, in the midst of all this going on with Nancy Guthrie, we should not be talking about nanos. We should never have been talking about nanos throughout, but the focus shifted several times because of what people saw as missteps. A lot of people still can't believe, not that you haven't solved the crime, but you don't even have a solid lead. It feels like in a lot like what is happening now? This is us. I'm sure things are going on behind the scenes, but the scrutiny on a case like this robes where every single eyeball is on you every single day looking for any little thing to report.
00:09:43
Speaker 2: And these aren't just little things. The Arizona Republic, which is the local paper. They're reported on all of his suspensions. They're not minor. Oh yeah there, and look, this may have happened thirty forty years ago, but it still calls in to question someone's character, and especially when someone's leading something this signalficant and needs to have his officers who report to him respect him. This causes all sorts of disruption in that chain of command.
00:10:07
Speaker 1: That's a very good point. We'll stay here, folks. We will get more into exactly what he's accused of doing during all those suspensions when he was a cop, before he ever got to Arizona. Stay with us.
00:10:28
Speaker 2: Welcome back everyone to this episode of Amy and TJ. Where we are we had hoped to be talking perhaps about a break or the latest and the Nancy Guthrie investigation, but instead the focus and the investigation has turned into the man responsible for heading everything up, the sheriff, Chris Nanos. We've heard his name, we've seen his face. He's been the face of the Nancy Guthrie investigation, and now he is the focus of his own investigation. He is literally fighting for his job right now as the Board of Supervisors. It looks as if as early as next month and a few weeks will be voting on whether or not to keep him as the top cop fair in Tucson. And many things have been discovered, including perhaps some dishonesty, lying under oath, talking about his previous work history, what actually allowed him to get the job he's holding. Now, A lot of folks are saying, dude, you have a very very marred pass that you did not disclose, and in fact you lied about you know.
00:11:28
Speaker 1: It's not just about the past. Is they actually think he kept it from them. Correct, he kept it from them, and not even kept it from him, but lied when I asked direct questions about things. Lied in order to get a job. And that's why I thought that was a strong statement by the supervisor, saying he perpetrated a fraud for forty years on my community.
00:11:46
Speaker 3: His attorney said he misunderstood the question.
00:11:48
Speaker 1: Now that part is I found a little bit hilarious. I get it. This was a point. This was the one about the under oath one.
00:11:56
Speaker 2: Oh, I've never been suspended while I've worked for Pima County.
00:12:00
Speaker 3: That's what I meant.
00:12:01
Speaker 2: I didn't mean that I've never been suspended in the entirety of my police career because actually in al Paso, yeah, I was suspended eight times. He left that part out because he misunderstood. He didn't think they wanted to know about his whole career, just his career at PM accounting.
00:12:15
Speaker 1: Can I leave some space for that being the case? Right?
00:12:18
Speaker 3: I was dripping in sarcasm, but can I.
00:12:19
Speaker 1: Leave some space for that being possible?
00:12:22
Speaker 3: He hoped that they were asking him, but that question was.
00:12:24
Speaker 1: Asked, Yeah, how it was asked. I don't have the verbatim. Who knows how it came off, what kind of pressure he was under, And I'm just trying to leave space ropes for the possibility being asked a question about disciplinary action and he said no never.
00:12:38
Speaker 2: Okay, Well, according to the Arizona Republic, who did some deep dives into this, and certainly this is the same information that the board is reviewing as well. But he was once suspended and we kind of touched on this before the break for beating up a suspect to his handcuffed in the back of his police vehicle with his flashlights so much that he actually suffered blood loss had to be admitted to the Hot spit All and He was suspended for that, I believe for fifteen days without pay.
00:13:06
Speaker 3: He was also just that's the worst one. Oh, that is I started with the worst.
00:13:10
Speaker 2: He was also disciplined for using profanity, insulting women, making threats. He was caught gambling on a pool game by undercover cops. He was disciplined for showing up late late to shifts, So he is dereliction of duties. So these are all pretty significant, and look eight times.
00:13:29
Speaker 3: That can you imagine.
00:13:31
Speaker 2: In any position you've ever held, being suspended eight times and keeping your job.
00:13:35
Speaker 1: This was early in his career.
00:13:37
Speaker 3: Okay, early in my career.
00:13:38
Speaker 2: I can't imagine being suspended once, let alone eight times, and keep not only keeping my job, but then being able to move to another jurisdiction, rising up the rank so quickly that I become sheriff of the whole damn thing. With that kind of sordid history, that is that should be looked into.
00:13:53
Speaker 1: It sounds like a nurse. You know, all the cases.
00:13:56
Speaker 3: We hear about priests or teachers.
00:13:58
Speaker 1: Behaving badly in one place, and there's not a good enough system in place that they are allowed to check on you when you're trying to get hired somewhere else, like there are rules about exchanges of information, like they might not have been able to Hey, heads up, Pema County. This guy used to be with us and I don't even know.
00:14:16
Speaker 2: It's almost like just moving the trash around, and that's what they kind of. There's a I forgot the name. They use it for teachers when you have a teacher who you just passed the trash. I think it's something like that, say, I hate to say, it's the same with priests.
00:14:27
Speaker 1: We're not calling him trash by way, I'm not using a phrase.
00:14:30
Speaker 2: That is a phrase that is used where they just don't want to deal with it, don't want to deal with the paperwork and perhaps even the publicity if they were to actually announce what this person did. So they let people resign without actually having to call them out on their bad behavior and push them to another jurisdiction or another area and let those are.
00:14:49
Speaker 3: That community deal with it.
00:14:50
Speaker 2: That is something that we have seen happen time and time again in several industries that actually are of the utmost importance, Like you said, nurses, teachers, priests, police officer.
00:15:00
Speaker 3: Certain doctors.
00:15:01
Speaker 2: These are people, yes, doctors, these are people we trust with our lives, our livelihoods, and this seems to perhaps have happened in Arizona with Sheriff Chris Nandos. If this is all proven to be.
00:15:13
Speaker 1: True, and again, try to leave space for this thing, Rodes, is that something he's what looking at him now, he's in his sixties, maybe right.
00:15:20
Speaker 3: I mean he's on the older side of things.
00:15:22
Speaker 1: He might have been in his twenties, early twenties, late twenties or whatever. I am. What I'm saying is there is space to leave for someone over forty fifty years of their life becoming a different individual, not making the same mistakes. That's possible, but that's not what we're talking about. The point here is did you lie to us? And yes?
00:15:43
Speaker 2: And if you're somebody who's willing to lie in a position that he's in to be the sheriff, I don't think that those two things can can jibe.
00:15:49
Speaker 3: I don't think you lose trust.
00:15:51
Speaker 2: And once you lose trust from the public, from perhaps your your fellow officers who are looking up to you, and certainly from the board members who are overseeing your department, I don't know how you effectively lead or actually investigate a case.
00:16:02
Speaker 1: He's not talking about.
00:16:03
Speaker 3: Yeah, he's distracted at the very least right now.
00:16:06
Speaker 1: And again, he's not lying about something unrelated to his job. This is directly related to and has an impact on his ability to do his job. That's why it does rise.
00:16:18
Speaker 2: Yes, he is being accused of hiding, deliberately hiding and lying about disciplinary actions that were taken against him as a police officer. That is a problem. So we're talking about fraud and perjury. Those are serious crimes, and you don't want to know that the guy leading up this investigation is accused of both.
00:16:39
Speaker 1: You know, even if he wasn't leading up this investigation, they would be trying to get rid of him, right, I mean, I know he's high profile, we're talking about him here, but the actions we're talking about, or the stuff is being alleged robes is bad stuff. No matter what case, if we never heard his name, this would still he's being held accountable. Not just because of this case. It brought screwed me, yes, it brought it, but but row this stuff stands as you can't lie about your job. It seems like forty years though some of that seems like wow.
00:17:11
Speaker 2: But just eight times babe, if it was one disciplinary action or maybe even two.
00:17:16
Speaker 3: Eight.
00:17:17
Speaker 2: When someone shows you who they are, believe them. I just I really do think that you can. You can allow people to make mistakes when you're young. I absolutely get that, But this to me seems different than that.
00:17:28
Speaker 1: I have no I'm taking no issue with what you just said. His answers are out there for all to see. He is denying a lot of what's being suggested, but also robes he has admitted, yes, he has had the suspension in his past. That's the update on the Nancy Guthrie investigation.
00:17:45
Speaker 3: Which is so sad.
00:17:46
Speaker 2: I'm thinking about poor Savannah, like to think, Wow, now they're just talking about the sheriff who is supposed to be finding my mom and even recognizing or realizing that perhaps any of this that's happening now is taking away from the efforts of finding where Nancy is. That's going to be really tough for her to be reading and looking at it this point, because all they want, all anybody wants, is answers into what happened to Nancy Gouthriine. So we'll of course stay on top of this story. Yeah, we wish the developments were coming sooner, and they were focused on Nancy and not on Sheriff Nanos. But this is where we are, and of course we'll keep our eye on that hearing that is set to take place mid May. All right with that, everyone, we always appreciate you listening to us, I mean me Robach alongside TJ. Holmes.
00:18:28
Speaker 3: We will talk to you soon