The ACLU is suing to get records from Pima County Sheriff Chris Nanos, saying it received reports from community members that his deputies are calling immigration officials when they conduct traffic stops — which the sheriff denies.
The reports came from people in Tucson who were trying to observe interactions between community members and federal agencies, specifically Border Patrol and Immigration and Customs Enforcement, said ACLU attorney John Mitchell.
“They noticed that there were some instances of a Pima sheriff being called to a scene, either for a traffic stop or some sort of investigation and federal immigration showing up as well,’’ Mitchell told Capitol Media Services.
“The incidents involving federal immigration and PCSD (Pima County Sheriff’s Department) officials that ACLU of Arizona is aware of occurred during the current Nanos administration, from 2021 to the present,” Mitchell said. “We hope for our litigation to bring answers to affected Pima County community members, and to all who support baseline transparency in law enforcement.”
Nanos, an elected Democrat, said it is his policy that none of his deputies call immigration officials in the case where a traffic stop finds someone lacks legal immigration status. In fact, he said, his agency specifically will not cooperate with ICE, to the point of refusing to hold on to someone the agency says it wants.
Such requests to detain people are “unconstitutional,’’ the sheriff said. “You want us to hold a prisoner? Then get a warrant.’’
Mitchell remains unconvinced. “We can’t say for sure what Pima sheriff is doing,’’ he said. “But we can say is they’re not giving us the records we requested so that we can make that determination.’’
The ACLU does know there were communications with immigration authorities, he said.
Nanos
In its new lawsuit, the ACLU says it asked for information in May about the Sheriff’s Department’s practices, specifically including its policy about contacts with federal officials to verify someone’s immigration status.
The ACLU also wants to know what policies the sheriff’s department has for assessing whether a traffic stop was extended for the purposes of verifying immigration status or waiting for immigration authorities to arrive.
But what they got was a series of delays, Mitchell said.
Moreover, he said he has reason to believe that any policies about tracking interactions with federal officials were wiped out shortly after the public records request was submitted in May.
He wants Pima County Superior Court Judge Greg Sakall to order the documents produced.
Nanos told Capitol Media Services there was some kind of tracking about interactions with people possibly here without legal status. But he said he inherited that from his predecessor, Republican Mark Napier, when he took office in 2021.
Nanos said Napier was trying to gather that data in his bid to get federal funds through Operation Stonegarden, a now-defunct program to give money to local law enforcement agencies to assist in border security operations.
County supervisors blocked that move. But the no-longer-needed reporting requirements remained, without Nanos’ knowledge, he said.
He said he ordered their removal not to thwart the ACLU but only because the provisions were called to his attention when Arizona Luminaria, an online Tucson news site, asked for the data the reports were supposed to be collecting.
Data being collected since he took office, the sheriff said, was of routine things like calls to Border Patrol for help, such as help finding a missing person if the Border Patrol is nearer to the area involved.
But Nanos acknowledged his department does keep records about the ethnicity of people stopped for traffic violations. That is simply “for auditing purposes to guard against racial profiling,” he said.
He also acknowledged that the official policy about traffic stops — and documenting what reasonable suspicion they had for questioning someone about immigration status — did change.
That was in a section that dealt with working with federal authorities on immigration issues, in wording that dated back to when Napier ran the office, Nanos said. That’s no longer necessary as his policy is not to pursue such cases.
It was also part of a larger rewrite of the policy and there was no nefarious intent, Nanos said.
Mitchell countered, “We have yet to understand the extent of communications between the sheriff and federal immigration authorities. We don’t have answers because the Pima sheriff has not given us the records.’’
Mitchell said there is no blanket prohibition against making calls to the feds, but that it’s not that simple.
“Context matters a great deal,’’ Mitchell said. “There may be legitimate reasons, or, at least, lawful reasons for immigration to be called. Or there may be unlawful reasons, like racial profiling or other more nefarious explanations.’’
“We can’t say for sure what Pima sheriff is doing,’’ he said. “But we can say is they’re not giving us the records we requested so that we can make that determination.’’
A Feb. 27 version of the policy says Sheriff’s Department members “shall not engage in racial or bias-based profiling.’’ It also says they can’t consider race, color or national origin except when part of a specific suspect description. Offices “shall document the existing reasonable suspicion in a case report,’’ it says.
But that language about what can be considered, and the requirement for documentation, is gone in a version of the rules dated May 21 — just a week after the ACLU submitted its request for public records.
“They do owe the public answers about the timing,’’ Mitchell said.
“Obviously, causation isn’t established just by the fact that the sheriff changed their policy after our inquiries,’’ he said. “We have yet to understand the full circumstances.’’
Nanos said it all came about because of the inquiry by Arizona Luminaria. “Once I heard of this I immediately had staff remove that policy with the intent being to reflect current practices regarding tracking contacts with immigration officials, something I thought I had stopped when first taking office,’’ he said.
Also remaining, he said, is a policy is that his deputies cannot — and do not — engage in racial profiling, something he said is shown by the data his agency does keep on the people stopped for traffic violations.
The sheriff gave Capitol Media Services some data for traffic stops since the beginning of the year.
He said there were 5,331 citations issued. Half, according to the document, were to those classified as white, with 35% to Hispanic motorists, 7% to those identified as African American, with smaller numbers for other groups along with about 4% listed as unknown or the box on the form was left blank.
The numbers were pretty similar for 2,922 warnings, breaking down at 55% for white motorists, 30% for Hispanics and 4% for African Americans.
“I’m guessing the percentages fall pretty close in line with our county demographics,’’ Nanos said.
As to the issues the ACLU is raising, “I completely understand their concern,’’ the sheriff said, saying his staff may have been overly aggressive with the policy alterations.
“Mea culpa, that’s on me for not being clear,’’ he said. “But we are not done with that policy review.’’
