Armed Deputies Sent to Election Workers’ Homes: Heap Files Emergency Motion

Home - MCBOS Watch - Armed Deputies Sent to Election Workers’ Homes: Heap Files Emergency Motion
You are currently viewing Armed Deputies Sent to Election Workers’ Homes: Heap Files Emergency Motion

Armed Deputies Sent to Election Workers’ Homes: Heap Files Emergency Motion

🚨 What Happened

On Friday, June 6, 2026, armed deputies from the Pinal County Sheriff’s Office (operating off-duty under contract) showed up unannounced at the private homes of three Maricopa County Recorder’s Office employees—including Chief Information Officer Bryan Colby.

The stated purpose: “notification” that they were under criminal investigation.

The actual effect: Intimidation of election workers 45 days before the July 21 Primary Election.

The Setup: A Court Already Ruled in Heap’s Favor

This wasn’t a legitimate law enforcement response to new evidence. Here’s the timeline:

Date Event
March 2026 Board of Supervisors removes election equipment from Recorder’s Office custody
April 16, 2026 Superior Court Judge Scott Blaney rules the equipment was “unlawfully taken” from the Recorder’s Office and orders it returned
May 2026 Elections Department officials Kinsey/Thomas submit allegations to County Attorney Rachel Mitchell
June 6, 2026 Armed deputies visit employees’ homes during evening hours
June 8, 2026 Recorder Justin Heap files emergency motion calling this the “most extreme escalation” in an 18-month retaliation pattern

The equipment in question? ImageTrac DS 1210 high-speed scanners purchased exclusively with Recorder’s Office funds—not Board funds. County records confirm the Recorder’s Office owns this equipment outright.

The Paradox: Comply and Be Investigated

The emergency motion highlights an impossible situation:

Court Order: Return equipment to Recorder’s Office
County Action: Criminal investigation of employees for accessing that same equipment

Employees cannot simultaneously obey the Court’s order (regain control of equipment) AND avoid the County’s criminal scrutiny for touching it.

Heap calls this what it is: using the criminal justice system to nullify a civil judgment the County lost.

Who Authorized Armed Deputies?

Key questions remain unanswered:

  • Who hired Pinal County deputies? The visits used off-duty PCSO personnel—not Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office deputies
  • Who paid for this? The deputies were working under private contract while in uniform
  • Why evening hours? 6:00-9:00 PM visits create intimidation, not administrative notification
  • Where are the body cameras? Apparently not activated, contrary to standard policy

This cross-county deployment bypassed normal MCSO procedures and accountability measures.

Rachel Mitchell’s Role: Pattern of Politicized Prosecution

County Attorney Rachel Mitchell has a documented history of investigations targeting institutional critics:

Year Target Context
2022 Kari Lake election litigation Defended Board practices; censured by GOP
2024-25 Pro-Palestine protesters Appealed order requiring her to testify on retaliatory intent
2025 Governor Hobbs “pay to play” Investigation at GOP request
May 2026 Recorder’s Office employees Criminal referral during civil compliance period

Mitchell acknowledged a conflict of interest in this matter and appointed Special Counsel—but only after initiating the investigation based on Board/Elections Department allegations.

The pattern: Mitchell investigates critics of the Board while defending the Board’s own conduct.

The Bigger Picture: Weaponizing Law Enforcement

This incident reveals a governance strategy:

  1. Public posture: “We support cooperation and transparency”
  2. Private action: Criminal investigations, armed notifications, subpoenas

The Board claims “administrative reconciliation” while deploying armed deputies to employees’ homes for an equipment dispute already resolved in the Recorder’s favor by the courts.

This is not normal. Standard practice for notifying subjects of investigation uses certified mail, telephone contact through counsel, or neutral process servers—not armed evening visits.

Structural Conflict: Board vs. Constitutional Officer

Under Arizona Constitution Article 8, the County Recorder is an independently elected constitutional officer—not an employee of the Board of Supervisors.

The Board controls budgets. The Recorder controls election equipment. When the Board doesn’t like how the Recorder exercises independent authority, they:

  • Remove equipment (court: “unlawful taking”)
  • Refer employees for criminal investigation
  • Deploy armed law enforcement during compliance periods

This is a constitutional boundary test—and the Board is pushing hard.

Key Takeaways for Citizens

  1. The equipment belongs to the Recorder’s Office. County records confirm this. The Court confirmed this. The County is ignoring this.
  2. Armed visits to election workers’ homes is escalation, not notification. This targets technical staff with specialized knowledge—not elected officials.
  3. The timing is strategic. Early voting for the July 21 Primary begins soon. Operational disruption serves political purposes.
  4. This fits an 18-month pattern. Heap’s emergency motion documents progressive institutional retaliation—from citizen ejections from meetings to access restrictions to now armed law enforcement.
  5. The County is appealing the Court’s order while refusing to comply. This creates maximum disruption while maintaining procedural deniability.

What Happens Next

  • Heap’s emergency motion seeks injunctive relief to halt the criminal investigation
  • The Court must decide whether the County can use parallel criminal process to circumvent civil judgments
  • The July 21 Primary Election approaches with election administration in conflict

Sources

 

Tags: