A 22-year-old Pima County deputy was jailed on a kidnapping charge after a woman said he solicited sex while taking her to the county jail.
TUCSON, AZ — A Pima County sheriff’s deputy was fired and arrested after authorities said he tried to pressure a handcuffed woman into sexual activity while transporting her to jail, delaying her booking and exploiting his control over the ride.
The case moved quickly from an alleged on-duty encounter to a felony charge, putting a fresh spotlight on how officers handle people in custody and how departments respond when misconduct claims involve a large power imbalance. Travis Reynolds, 22, was dismissed after his arrest by Tucson police. Prosecutors said the woman told investigators she feared Reynolds because of his job and the authority he had over her during the transport.
According to an interim complaint, the encounter began March 19 when Reynolds was assigned to take a woman to the Pima County jail. The complaint says he commented on her appearance during the drive, calling her “hot” and, at another point, a “MILF.” After arriving at the jail, investigators said, Reynolds reversed his vehicle near a back wall and parked instead of taking her straight inside. The woman remained in handcuffs. The complaint says he moved her hands from behind her back to the front, returned to the driver’s seat and shared a vape pen with her while the two remained in the parked vehicle.
Investigators say Reynolds then told the woman he “could help with her case.” In the complaint, authorities said he explained that help could mean not going to court and suggested they could go to a hotel and have sex. The woman told investigators she did not respond to the proposal and repeatedly told him no. The complaint says Reynolds showed her sexually explicit videos on his phone and kept talking about sexual activity instead of booking her into the jail. She later told investigators the moment felt “unreal” and “terrible and awful,” and said she had never been arrested before, did not know what the normal procedure was and did not understand why she was still sitting in the vehicle while other officers came and went with their own arrestees.
The woman told investigators she asked to be taken inside the jail, but Reynolds refused. The complaint says he eventually told her to lift her shirt and show him her breasts. She said she complied only while still in his custody and still trying to get inside the jail. According to the complaint, Reynolds then removed her from the vehicle and brought her into the facility. Surveillance video from the jail, investigators said, confirmed parts of her account. The video showed Reynolds getting out of the vehicle, adjusting her handcuffs and later sitting in the driver’s seat while holding a dark object that appeared to be his phone and directing it toward the back passenger area, according to the complaint. Authorities have not publicly said whether additional video or phone records were recovered.
Reynolds was arrested March 26 by the Tucson Police Department, and the Pima County Sheriff’s Department said he was terminated after the arrest. He appeared in court the next day. A judge set bond at $200,000. His next court appearance, a preliminary hearing, is scheduled for 1:30 p.m. April 6. During the hearing, prosecutors said the woman was afraid of Reynolds because of the “power dynamic” between them. Prosecutors also said the conduct described in the case may not have been an isolated event, though no additional public charges were announced Friday and no other accusers were identified in open court.
The central legal claim so far is kidnapping, a charge tied to the allegation that Reynolds kept the woman in custody for his own purpose instead of promptly completing the jail transfer. The complaint describes a woman who was handcuffed, inexperienced with the arrest process and dependent on the deputy for every next step, from movement to booking. That setting is likely to be central as the case moves forward, because the question is not only what was said in the vehicle but whether a deputy used official custody to isolate, delay and pressure a detainee who had no practical way to leave. Investigators have not publicly listed additional counts, and court records available Friday did not show a broader charging package.
Reynolds made statements that investigators included in the complaint. Authorities said he told them he may or may not have shown the woman videos of sexual acts. The complaint also says he admitted he may or may not have discussed having sex at a hotel. Those statements are likely to draw attention as prosecutors and defense lawyers begin testing the evidence against the surveillance footage and the woman’s account. Defense arguments raised in court Friday focused in part on Reynolds’ background. According to the defense, he has lived in Arizona his whole life and has no criminal history. That does not answer the central allegations, but it signals the line his lawyers may take as they argue bond, credibility and intent in the weeks ahead.
The case has also drawn notice because it centers on one of the most vulnerable moments in the criminal justice system: the period after arrest and before booking, when a detainee is restrained, isolated and fully dependent on the officer in charge. The woman’s account suggests she did not know whether the stop in the vehicle was routine, how long booking was supposed to take or how to challenge what was happening. Prosecutors highlighted that imbalance in court, saying her fear stemmed not only from the sexual nature of the allegations but from the badge, the setting and the authority Reynolds held over her at the time. That issue is expected to remain at the heart of the case as lawyers and investigators sort out where misconduct ends and felony criminal conduct begins.
For now, Reynolds is no longer employed by the sheriff’s department, the kidnapping case is pending and investigators appear to be examining whether the incident was isolated. The next major marker is the April 6 preliminary hearing, when prosecutors are expected to lay out more of the evidence and a judge will decide whether the felony case should move forward.
Author note: Last updated March 28, 2026.