Pima County Sheriff Chris Nanos is reportedly refusing to release a glove and DNA evidence to the FBI in the disappearance of Tucson resident Nancy Guthrie, a dispute that has raised questions about who controls key evidence and how those choices could affect the pace of the case.
TLDR
A federal official told Fox News Digital that Pima County Sheriff Chris Nanos is refusing to release a glove and DNA evidence to the FBI in the Nancy Guthrie disappearance, insisting instead on private lab testing, as the investigation remains in its early stages.
Evidence Dispute Centers on Lab Choice
According to Fox News Digital, citing a federal law enforcement official, the FBI has asked the Pima County Sheriff’s Office to turn over a glove and DNA recovered from inside Guthrie’s Tucson home so the items can be analyzed at the FBI’s national crime laboratory in Quantico, Virginia. Instead, the outlet reports, Nanos has insisted that the evidence be processed by a private laboratory in Florida that already has a contract with his department.
The federal official, who was not named in the reporting, characterized the sheriff’s decision as an obstacle to the federal investigation. The official told Reuters, as quoted by Fox News Digital, that “It risks further slowing a case that grows more urgent by the minute,” and pointed to what were described as earlier setbacks in the investigation.
The sheriff involved in the Nancy Guthrie case has been accused of keeping crucial evidence from the FBI. https://t.co/rK59V19KF2 pic.twitter.com/8Y1Lbgurit
— Irish Star US (@IrishStarUS) February 13, 2026
Those setbacks were not detailed publicly, and neither federal authorities nor the sheriff’s office has provided a full timeline of what was done in the first days after Guthrie was reported missing. Without that timeline, it is not yet clear whether disagreements over lab testing are a recent development or part of a longer pattern of friction between local and federal investigators.
Federal Role Limited by Local Control
Under standard practice, the Pima County Sheriff’s Office serves as the primary investigative agency because Guthrie disappeared from within its jurisdiction. According to Fox News Digital, the FBI can participate more fully in the case only if local officials request that assistance or if specific federal jurisdictional triggers are met.
In many missing persons investigations, local agencies decide whether to request federal help, which laboratories to use, and how to prioritize evidence. Those decisions can have significant procedural effects, especially in the earliest days of a case when physical evidence is most likely to be intact and witnesses’ memories most reliable.
The federal official quoted in the reporting criticized Nanos for not seeking FBI assistance earlier in the investigation into Guthrie’s disappearance. That criticism, however, reflects the view of one unnamed federal source. There is, at present, no public statement from the sheriff explaining his timeline for involving federal authorities or his reasons for relying on the existing contract with the private lab.
The sheriff’s office, according to Fox News Digital, did not respond to the outlet’s request for comment about the reported disagreement over evidence testing. Without that response, the public record shows only one side of a dispute that has clear consequences for how the case proceeds.
Money, Technology, and the Question of Speed
The unnamed federal official told Fox News Digital that Pima County has spent roughly $200,000 sending evidence to the private Florida laboratory. That figure, if accurate, highlights the financial dimension of an investigative choice that is being framed by federal authorities as both a budgetary and a time issue.
The same official argued that using federal forensic resources would be a more efficient path, telling Reuters that “It is clear the fastest path to answers is leveraging federal resources and technology. Anything less only prolongs the Guthrie family’s grief and the community’s wait for justice.” That claim, while forceful, has not been publicly tested against any detailed explanation of the private lab’s capabilities or turnaround times.
Across the United States, local agencies sometimes rely on private laboratories to handle DNA and other forensic testing, particularly when public labs face backlogs. Those arrangements can be driven by contracts, grant funding, or past experience. At the same time, the FBI lab in Quantico is one of the largest public crime laboratories in the country, and federal officials often emphasize its capacity and national databases as reasons to centralize key forensic work there.
In the Guthrie case, the choice between the FBI lab and the contracted private lab matters for more than technology. It affects who controls the evidence, which investigators have direct access to test results, and how quickly those results can be compared against national databases. At this stage, however, neither side has released detailed data that would allow the public to independently assess which path is likely to be faster or more thorough.
Surveillance Footage and a Growing Record
The reported evidence dispute is unfolding as investigators gradually expand what is known about the hours surrounding Guthrie’s disappearance. According to Fox News Digital, the FBI and the Pima County Sheriff’s Office recently released surveillance footage that shows a masked person approaching Guthrie’s front door shortly before she vanished.
Details about the footage, including how clearly the individual can be seen and what movements are captured, have not been fully described in public reporting. Authorities have not named any suspects, and it remains unclear whether the person in the video is believed to be a witness, a person of interest, or a suspect.
Guthrie was reported missing from her Tucson home in the early morning hours of Sunday, February 1st. Fox News Digital reports that she was reported missing later that same day. That leaves an unresolved question about what, if anything, was observed by neighbors, passersby, or potential cameras in the hours between the last confirmed sighting of Guthrie and the time the missing persons report was filed.
In an effort to generate leads, the FBI has increased the reward to $100,000 for information that leads to Guthrie’s return or to an arrest in the case, according to Fox News Digital. Reward announcements are a familiar feature of high-profile missing persons investigations, and they can bring in a surge of tips. However, they do not guarantee actionable information, particularly if internal disagreements are slowing the analysis of physical evidence.
Family and Community Wait for Answers
Public reporting so far has focused on the institutional conflict between the sheriff’s office and federal investigators, but behind that dispute is a missing person whose fate remains unknown. Guthrie’s family, whose statements have not been included in the available reporting on the lab disagreement, is watching an investigation in which key decisions are being debated in public without clear explanations.
Community frustration often rises when investigations are perceived as fragmented or slow. In this case, the federal official’s criticism of the sheriff’s approach has made that fragmentation visible, even as the sheriff has not publicly provided his account of the same events. Without a shared narrative from law enforcement, residents are left to interpret partial information about how their local and federal agencies are cooperating, or failing to cooperate.
At the same time, public investigators must balance transparency with the need to protect investigative details that could compromise leads or taint potential jury pools. That tension is visible here, where specific evidence items and spending figures have been disclosed, yet basic questions about investigative strategy, lab turnaround times, and information sharing remain unanswered.
What Comes Next in the Guthrie Investigation
Several procedural questions now sit at the center of the case. Will the sheriff’s office ultimately agree to send the glove and DNA evidence to the FBI lab in Quantico? Will federal officials find another legal or cooperative path to obtain the evidence if local authorities maintain control? And if test results emerge from the private lab, how quickly will they be shared with federal investigators who are offering national resources?
So far, there is no public indication that the disagreement has been resolved. The sheriff’s office has not, according to Fox News Digital, answered detailed questions about its evidence handling choices. The FBI, meanwhile, continues to participate in the case while publicly offering a substantial reward for information.
As the investigation continues, the unanswered questions are less about what happened inside Guthrie’s home and more about how law enforcement institutions are choosing to search for those answers. Whether the current dispute over a glove, DNA, and a laboratory contract is resolved in favor of federal testing, private analysis, or some combination of both will help determine not only the pace of the case but also public confidence in its eventual outcome.
