Jail reporting by Arizona Luminaria journalist targeted in sheriff election dispute

Arizona Luminaria reporter John Washington’s efforts to interview people incarcerated in Pima County jail as part of a years-long investigation into deaths, excessive force and inhumane conditions are being targeted in the race for sheriff.

With early voting ongoing and only weeks to go until Election Day, incumbent Democrat Sheriff Chris Nanos placed Heather Lappin — a Republican candidate vying for Nanos’ job and a lieutenant in the Pima County jail — on leave Monday . Nanos also placed Sgt. Aaron Cross on leave, as first reported by Green Valley News on Oct. 14.

Washington has spent years sending letters, waiting outside the jail for people about to be released or fruitlessly trying to make phone calls to get a glimpse of conditions for people incarcerated inside.

“I think it is critically important for our society to know what happens behind the bars,” Washington said in a phone interview Tuesday.

Now those efforts to reach people incarcerated in Pima County jail by phone, which Washington said are part of his regular news reporting, have become one piece of a broader dispute.

A press release from the sheriff’s department shared Tuesday said that Lappin “colluded with a journalist to facilitate payment to an inmate in exchange for a news story,” and did not name Arizona Luminaria.

Arizona Luminaria responded to subsequent allegations about their reporting.

“Arizona Luminaria does not and would never pay for sources, interviews or information,” said Irene Fischler McKisson, an Arizona Luminaria executive, in a written statement. “Our nonprofit and nonpartisan newsroom follows all legal and fair journalistic ethics guidelines while undertaking deep, context-driven community and investigative reporting.”

An ongoing Arizona Luminaria investigation into jail deaths , dating back to 2022, scrutinized Nanos’ leadership. Stories included statements from former employees, families and advocates who, in some cases, called for Nanos to resign, as well as the sheriff’s responses. Washington continues to investigate wrongdoing and injustices at the jail and has been covering the sheriff’s race in this election cycle.

The sheriff department’s release said Cross was put on administrative leave for “participating in political activities while wearing tan BDU cargo pants, tan boots, a gray t-shirt, a weapon in a holster, and his magazine pouch with handcuffs.” The release did not state that Cross was wearing his uniform. Rather, it states that Cross was “appearing equipped like a law enforcement officer who is associated with official duties.” Cross was holding a sign reading “Deputies don’t want Nanos.”

Both Cross and Lappin are under internal investigation by the Sheriff’s Department, the release said.

“It is in the public’s best interest to understand the context of these decisions and the fact that a thorough investigation will take time,” Nanos said in the release.

Contacted by phone Tuesday evening, Lappin and Cross each told Arizona Luminaria by text they could not comment under a gag order. They directed questions to their attorney Steve Serbalik.

Serbalik, an attorney with AZCOPS, the Arizona Conference of Police and Sheriffs, did not comment on a specific case but said any efforts to put members of the group on administrative leave for protected speech activities would be unconstitutional.

“Our members took an oath to support and defend the Constitution — which includes the First Amendment right to participate in the political process while off-duty,” he said in an email.

Lappin denied any misconduct, he said, but is unable to speak further because she is one of multiple members of the sheriff’s office subject to a gag order while on administrative leave.

Nanos did not respond to a request for comment.

This week marks the second time Nanos has suspended an opponent. When running for his first term as sheriff in 2016, he suspended his opponent Sgt. Terry Staten, citing county rules that at the time said someone could be suspended if an employee’s election activities prevented them from performing their duties or if the activities adversely affected department operations. Those rules have since been changed.

Reporter shows work, receipt

Last summer, Washington continued to interview people incarcerated in Pima County jail.

As part his reporting, Washington said he was in touch with a public information officer to help facilitate interviews with people incarcerated inside the jail. After that, he said, Lappin reached out via phone.

Washington said he had a July 17 text message exchange with Lappin. He shared those texts with Arizona Luminaria that said: “I’m trying to get in touch with two inmates.” He provided birthdates and booking numbers.

“Got it! I’ll let you know tomorrow after I speak to them,” was the response.

On July 18, Washington said thank you and that one inmate already reached out to him. “The inmate paid for the call, however, and I want to reimburse him,” said Washington, who asks about the process for doing so. The total reimbursement was $20, plus a $4.99 fee, according to a receipt shared by Washington with Arizona Luminaria.

Washington said it was critically important that people incarcerated in jails and prisons are able to communicate with people on the outside, including journalists. He wanted to ensure that the cost of making a phone call would not be a barrier to an incarcerated person sharing their story publicly.

“People are rendered voiceless sometimes because of the cost, because it is hard and expensive to make calls or to send letters or to receive letters or to get properly fed,” said Washington. “The Pima County jail has very recently gone through a period of extreme crisis with the deaths in the jail, and that has turned around in part due to the increased community vigilance.”

Emily Bell, director of the Tow Center for Digital Journalism at the Columbia Journalism School, said that while reporters should not pay sources for interviews, there is a clear ethical difference between using money to encourage someone to speak to a reporter and reimbursing a source for an expense incurred in doing the interview.

“There are clearly differences between making it possible for someone to speak to you when they are economically disadvantaged, once that happens after the interview has taken place, and offering somebody payment to be interviewed,” she said.

Access to people who are in prison or jail was particularly difficult, and important, Bell said.

“It’s absolutely vital that you have some insight and journalism into what is happening to incarcerated populations,” said Bell, who has served as a member of Poynter’s National Advisory Board. “It’s an area where there is a historic overreach of power and it is particularly difficult to access anybody who is incarcerated.”

Jail phone systems costly

The high cost of phone access for inmates has long been an area of concern for human- and civil-right advocates.

The Prison Policy Initiative, a nonprofit nonpartisan research group, published a 2022 report on prison phone access, noting inmates and their families were paying “shockingly high prices for basic communications technology.”

The average cost in Arizona of a 15-minute phone call from jail is about $2.79. In addition, jail phone calls in Arizona were 2.7 times more expensive than a phone call from the prison, where people would be held once they began serving time, the 2022 report found.

In Pima County, a prepaid account through a service called “GTL AdvancePay” must be set up for an incarcerated person to make calls or receive voicemail messages, according to the Pima County Sheriff’s website. “There must be sufficient funds for a call to go through,” the website states .

During his reporting on the Pima County jail, Washington spoke to nearly 50 people, including many previously incarcerated in the jail.

“​​Neither people nor information are easy to get out of jail,” according to a 2022 story by Washington .

A contested race

The Pima County Sheriff’s Department is charged with responding to emergencies and reported crimes, running and maintaining the jail and, according to the department’s website, working “relentlessly toward making our community safe for the people of Pima County.”

The sheriff oversees a budget of around $170 million with about 1,500 total staff.

In Tuesday’s news release, Nanos said his decisions were not retaliatory, but would open space for a deeper inquiry. His office had made referrals to the Arizona Attorney General and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, he said.

“Holding staff accountable for their actions is not retaliation, and while I have previously overlooked certain behaviors due to the ongoing campaign, this new information is serious and simply cannot be ignored,” he said in Tuesday’s press release.

Cross is a leader of the Pima County Deputy’s Organization, which represents about half of the department’s deputies.

In January, the organization approved a nearly unanimous vote of no confidence in Nanos.

“This vote was called after years of frustration at the lack of competent leadership and mismanagement from Sheriff Nanos and his senior command,” the organization said in a statement shared on social media . “There have been so many instances of dissident voices being retaliated against that would be difficult to catalogue.”

The deputies’ labor organization has since endorsed Republican candidate Lappin.

Separately, Nanos was endorsed by Pima County Deputy Sheriff’s Association, which is the Sheriff Department’s largest labor organization as it represents not only deputies but correctional officers and civilian staff.

This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.

The post Jail reporting by Arizona Luminaria journalist targeted in sheriff election dispute appeared first on AZ Luminaria .