By Howard Fischer
Mail | X: @azcapmedia

The ACLU wants records from Pima County Sheriff Chris Nanos to find out if his deputies are calling immigration officials when they conduct a traffic stop.

In a new lawsuit, attorney John Mitchell says his organization asked for information in May about the practices of the agency. That, he said, includes a policy about contacts with federal officials to verify someone’s immigration status.

He also wants to know what policies there are for the sheriff’s department to assess whether a traffic stop was extended for the purposes of verifying immigration status or waiting for immigration authorities to arrive.

What he got, Mitchell said, was a series of delays.

Worse yet, he said he has reason to believe any policies about tracking interactions with federal officials was wiped out shortly after the public records request was submitted in May. Now 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 those possibly here illegal. But he said he inherited that from predecessor 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. Nanos said, however, the no-longer-needed reporting requirements remained — something he said was occurring without his knowledge.

He said he ordered their removal not to thwart the ACLU but because the provisions were called to his attention when Arizona Luminaria, an online Tucson newsletter, asked for the data the reports were supposed to be collecting.

What data was being collected since he took office, the sheriff said, were routine such as calls to Border Patrol for help or finding a missing person.

But Nanos acknowledged his department does keep records about the ethnicity of those who are stopped for traffic violations. He said that is simply “for auditing purposes to guard against racial profiling.”

He acknowledged the official policy about traffic stops — and documenting what reasonable suspicion they had for questioning someone about immigration status — did change.

But Nanos also noted that was in a section that dealt with working with federal authorities on immigration issues, the language that went back to when Napier ran the office. That’s no longer necessary as his policy is not to pursue such cases.

Anyway, he said, that was part of a larger policy rewrite and there was no nefarious intent.

Mitchell, however, said he’s not convinced.

He said there were reports by those in the Tucson community who were trying to observe interactions between community members and federal agencies, specifically Border Patrol and Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

“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. That, he said, led to the request for records of the communications.

“We have yet to understand the extent of communications between the sheriff and federal immigration authorities,” Mitchell said. “We don’t have answers because the Pima sheriff has not given us the records.”

Less clear is whether any calls to the feds — to the extent they exist — are legal. Mitchell said there is no blanket prohibition.

But 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,” he explained. “Or there may be unlawful reasons, like racial profiling or other more nefarious explanations.”

Nanos said it is his policy that none of his deputies call immigration officials in the case where a traffic stop finds someone not here legally. In fact, he said, his agency specifically will not cooperate with ICE, even to the point of refusing to hold on to someone the agency says it wants.

“They’re unconstitutional,” the sheriff said. “You want us to hold a prisoner?

Then get a warrant.”

Mitchell remains skeptical.

“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.”

What Mitchell said the ACLU does know is there were communications with immigration authorities.

A Feb. 27 version of the rules does say 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.
And it says offices “shall document the existing reasonable suspicion in a case report.”

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 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.

And he said what also remains 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 who are 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 issues. 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% that were listed as unknown or the box on the form was left blank.

The numbers were similar for 2,922 warnings, breaking down at 55% for white motorists, 30% for Hispanics and 4% for African American.
“I’m guessing the percentages fall pretty close in line with our county demographics,” Nanos said.

And the issues the ACLU is raising?

“I completely understand their concern,” the sheriff said, saying his staff may have been overly aggressive with the alterations.

“Mea culpa, that’s on me for not being clear,” he said. “But we are not done with that policy review.”