Arizona Department of Public Safety Appointed Daniel Wayne Caputo Head of Polygraph Unit Despite Arizona Supreme Court Finding of Noncompliance

Documents obtained under the Arizona Public Records Act and made available to AntiPolygraph.org raise serious questions regarding the current head of the Arizona Department of Safety’s (AZDPS’s) polygraph unit, Daniel Wayne Caputo.

According to Caputo’s LinkedIn profile, he has been AZDPS’s polygraph unit supervisor since April 2022, a position that, according to public records, paid $138,000 per year in 2023:

Prior to this appointment, Caputo had worked as a private polygraph operator, providing polygraph services for various Arizona public agencies on a contractual basis.

Among Caputo’s clients was the Arizona Supreme Court’s Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC). Caputo had “contracted with the AOC for more than 10 years” to conduct polygraph examinations of juveniles before being subjected to his first (and only) review, which was conducted by Juvenile Justice Services Division specialist DeAnna Faltz.

Faltz’s review found Caputo to have deviated from the American Polygraph Association’s model policy for post-conviction polygraph screening, identifying numerous deficiencies in his polygraph services. Caputo reportedly:

• failed to provide required advisements to juveniles;
• polygraphed some clients (6 out of the 20 reviewed) more than the four times per year allowed;
• in 9 out of 20 cases scheduled “maintenance” polygraphs more frequently than the prescribed interval of “approximately each six to 12 months;”
• in all 20 cases reviewed failed to include “documentation that clients received a copy of client rights and that clients received a verbal explanation of their rights;”
• “did not provide documentation of training and acknowledgement that training has occurred annually as required.”

In addition, Caputo allegedly failed to submit the following required policies regarding “key standards” for review: 1) operation; 2) storage, retention, and disposal of client records; 3) client confidentiality and dissemination of client records; 4) incident reporting; and 5) fingerprinting and fingerprint clearance.

Moreover, “11 of the 20 client files (55%) were missing” required billing documentation. Caputo was instructed to either provide missing documentation for a total of 16 polygraph examinations or “remit a credit memo totaling $4,400.”

The Contract Compliance Evaluation Report further found that:

The provider’s [Caputo’s] Consent to Polygraph Examination form was missing items…including the following:

• A statement regarding the examinee’s assessment of his or her mental and physical health at the time of the examination
• An advisement that admission of involvement in unlawful activities will not be concealed from the referring professionals
• Did not include the parent/guardian’s signature

While the review was in progress, Caputo provided notice to the Administrative Office of the Courts that he was terminating his contract.

AntiPolygraph.org co-founder George Maschke contacted Caputo seeking commentary regarding the AOC report, asking the following questions:

• Do you contest any of the report’s findings? If so, which ones?
• Could you explain your reasons for terminating your services with the Administrative Office of the Courts?
• Is there anything else you think is important for me to know in order to report fairly and accurately about this matter?

Caputo provided a four-paragraph reply (reproduced in full below) asserting, among other things, that contrary to the Administrative Office of the Courts’ findings, “all polygraph examinations conducted under this contract fully adhered to the American Polygraph Association (APA) standards of practice.”

Caputo also states that his company, Northland Investigations, terminated the contract because the Administrative Office of the Courts had decided to “essentially eliminate polygraph testing for juvenile sex offenders in the State of Arizona” and that it no longer made economic sense to pay high insurance premiums associated with the contract.

Caputo did not specifically address the missing billing documentation for 16 polygraph examinations and the demand that he provide it or “remit a credit memo totaling $4,400.” He did, however, state that “Northland Investigations addressed all administrative concerns raised in the audit.”

While Caputo maintains that “[t]he audit addressed administrative concerns, rather than the quality of the polygraph examinations themselves,” such administrative concerns seem relevant when choosing the supervisor of a state law enforcement agency’s polygraph unit.

Additional documentation released under the Arizona Public Records Act and obtained by AntiPolygraph.org shows that in connection with a 2024 bid for a polygraph services contract with Maricopa County, Caputo answered “no” when asked “Have you ever received any Demand for Assurance or any other official letters/documents regarding your code of ethics, quality, or timeliness of work? How did you respond and what was your corrective action?”

A reasonable person might conclude that here, Caputo should have disclosed the AOC Contract Compliance Evaluation Report.

AntiPolygraph.org’s George Maschke also sought comment from AZDPS Director Jeffrey Glover via email, providing a copy of the AOC report, noting the deficiencies identified therein (and enumerated in this article), and asking “at the time DPS hired Mr. Caputo, was it aware of this report by the Administrative Office of the Courts? Is there anything else that you think it is important for me to know in order to report fairly and accurately on this matter?”

At the time of writing, Director Glover has not responded.

In the interest of full disclosure, Daniel Caputo’s full response to AntiPolygraph.org co-founder George Maschke’s request for comment is reproduced below:

Dear Mr. Maschke,

In 2021, the Arizona Administration Office of the Courts (AOC) conducted a contractual compliance audit of Northland Investigations. Notably, the timing of the audit coincided with AOC management’s decision to essentially eliminate polygraph testing for juvenile sex offenders in the State of Arizona. The audit addressed administrative concerns, rather than the quality of the polygraph examinations themselves.

Northland Investigations had been providing polygraph services under this contract since 2008. Over the course of these 13 years, Northland Investigations worked in partnership with AOC without any issues or concerns regarding the terms of the contract. AOC even requested the owner, Dan Caputo, present polygraph best practices to probation entities.

Northland Investigations asserts that all polygraph examinations conducted under this contract fully adhered to the American Polygraph Association (APA) standards of practice. Examinations were performed as requested by probation entities and billed in accordance with the contract terms. All reports were disseminated to probation officers and treatment providers timely and per contractual requirements.

Through a thorough process and in collaboration with the requesting probation entities, Northland Investigations addressed all administrative concerns raised in the audit. Northland Investigations provided substantial documentation that should have resolved the concerns. Ultimately, it was Northland Investigation’s decision to terminate the contract prior to final resolution of the audit, as it no longer made economic sense to continue paying high insurance premiums for a contract in which Juvenile Sex Offender polygraph services had been essentially eliminated in the State of Arizona.

Thank you,

Dan Caputo
Northland Investigations, LLC