Scrutiny of Nancy Guthrie Investigation Raises Questions About Pima County Liability

More than six months after Nancy Guthrie disappeared from her Tucson area home, scrutiny of the investigation has raised a separate legal question over whether Savannah Guthrie and her family could hold Pima County responsible if mistakes by law enforcement hindered efforts to find her.

The Guthrie family has not announced plans to sue the county. Nancy Guthrie, the 84-year-old mother of the Today show co-anchor, disappeared from her home in the Catalina Foothills on the night of Jan. 31. Authorities believe she was taken against her will, and no arrest has been announced.

Criticism of the Pima County Sheriff’s Department has focused on decisions made during the first days of the investigation, including how quickly evidence outside Guthrie’s home was secured, delays involving aerial search resources and the extent of the FBI’s early involvement. Sheriff Chris Nanos has defended the department’s handling of the case and said investigators continue to work with federal authorities and outside experts.

Even if investigators made mistakes, Arizona law sets a high bar for turning those errors into a successful lawsuit against a law enforcement agency.

That issue has reached Arizona courts before. In Hogue v. City of Phoenix, families of victims of the serial killer known as the Baseline Killer alleged that police and laboratory delays prevented authorities from identifying him sooner, allowing him to remain free and commit additional crimes.

The Arizona Court of Appeals rejected the negligence claims in 2016, finding that undertaking a criminal investigation did not by itself create a legal duty to protect the victims from the killer. The ruling meant the families could not base their claims simply on allegations that police should have identified or arrested him sooner.

The court distinguished that general rule from circumstances in which police undertake to provide specific protection to an identifiable person facing a known threat. That distinction could become relevant to the Guthrie case depending on what occurred after ransom demands began arriving.

Two notes purportedly sent by Guthrie’s captor demanded payment in Bitcoin, with one setting deadlines for payment and another later claiming she had died. Authorities have not established that Guthrie is dead. Savannah Guthrie and her siblings publicly said in February that they were prepared to pay a ransom and asked for proof that their mother was alive.

What instructions law enforcement gave the family about responding to those demands, if any, have not been established publicly. Those communications could be relevant to whether authorities undertook a more specific responsibility toward Guthrie or her family if a legal claim were ever pursued.

Establishing such a duty would still be only part of the case. The family would also have to show that law enforcement breached that obligation and that the breach caused a legally recognized injury. With no arrest and significant questions about what happened after Guthrie was taken, that connection has not been established publicly.

Arizona law also limits liability for public agencies and employees when a claim is based on a failure to make an arrest. A public entity or employee generally cannot be held liable for failing to arrest someone unless an employee intended to cause injury or acted with gross negligence. That standard requires more than showing that investigators made a mistake or exercised poor judgment.

Arizona also generally requires anyone seeking damages from a public entity to first serve a formal notice of claim within 180 days after the claim accrues. No notice of claim from the Guthrie family has been publicly announced.

The Pima County Sheriff’s Department and FBI continue to investigate Guthrie’s disappearance. Her family has offered up to $1 million for information leading to her recovery. As of Aug. 11, no one has been arrested in connection with the case, and the Guthrie family has not announced legal action against Pima County.