Did Scottsdale Officer Debbie Wood Commit Perjury?

A motorist recently received a photo red light ticket in the mail for allegedly running a red light by a trivial 0.2 seconds at the Scottsdale Rd. and Shea Blvd. intersection in Scottsdale. Interestingly, none of the photos taken clearly show the driver. This didn’t stop Scottsdale Police Officer Debra (Debbie) Wood from signing the citation and declaring “I hereby certify that I have reasonable grounds to believe, and do believe, based on my examination of digital images and data associated with this violation, that the person named herein committed the civil traffic violation listed above.” According to ARS 28-1561.B, a false certification is perjury.

We have to wonder how Debra Wood was able to identify the driver of the vehicle in question with most facial features hidden by the vehicles sun visor and rear view mirror. In fact, it’s not even possible to identify the gender of the driver with any certainty. We know that Arizona courts have ruled on at least 3 occasions that a gender match alone is not sufficient to establish reasonable grounds of belief required to issue a ticket. So how exactly did Officer Wood identify the driver?

In the pursuit of filling Scottsdale and Redflex’s coffers, it appears to us that Officer Wood knowingly and purposefully committed perjury, as the images simply do not provide enough information (reasonable grounds) required to identify the driver and thus to issue a ticket legally. If ever tried and convicted, Officer Wood is at risk of losing her POST certification.

30 Responses to Did Scottsdale Officer Debbie Wood Commit Perjury?

  1. sending legal observation email to cameraFRAUD. please forward to victim. thanks.

  2. Glyph says:

    I’ll bet hundreds (if not thousands) of these questionable “tickets” have been sent out in hopes that motorists would be intimidated, not know their rights, and simply pay them.

  3. R says:

    The first intersection photo clearly shows the vehicle has already entered the intersection before the light changed as it is slightly past the red line. So there should not have been a ticket in the first place. Look at the front of the car.. not the wheels. The sensor in the ground can only track the position of the wheels.

  4. Why isn’t anyone going after Mrs. Woods POST certification?

  5. RC says:

    The officer probably did! I received a ticket several years ago with no face shot at all from the city of Scottsdale and I sent the paperwork to the company after I was falsely served (they pushed it through my door) and they claimed they never received it so the court suspended my license with no proof. So I would say yes the officer did commit perjury especially if she works for Scottsdale…they are all crooks there all the way up into the court system!

  6. Stacey says:

    The TSA experiment reminds me of the Tuskege syphilis experiment.


    The ten points of the Nuremberg Code

    The ten points are, (all from United States National Institutes of Health) [1]

    1. The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him/her to make an understanding and enlightened decision. This latter element requires that before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonable to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment.

    The duty and responsibility for ascertaining the quality of the consent rests upon each individual who initiates, directs or engages in the experiment. It is a personal duty and responsibility which may not be delegated to another with impunity.

    2. The experiment should be such as to yield fruitful results for the good of society, unprocurable by other methods or means of study, and not random and unnecessary in nature.

    3. The experiment should be so designed and based on the results of animal experimentation and a knowledge of the natural history of the disease or other problem under study that the anticipated results will justify the performance of the experiment.

    4. The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury.

    5. No experiment should be conducted where there is a prior reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur; except, perhaps, in those experiments where the experimental physicians also serve as subjects.

    6. The degree of risk to be taken should never exceed that determined by the humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved by the experiment.

    7. Proper preparations should be made and adequate facilities provided to protect the experimental subject against even remote possibilities of injury, disability, or death.

    8. The experiment should be conducted only by scientifically qualified persons. The highest degree of skill and care should be required through all stages of the experiment of those who conduct or engage in the experiment.

    9. During the course of the experiment the human subject should be at liberty to bring the experiment to an end if he has reached the physical or mental state where continuation of the experiment seems to him to be impossible.

    10. During the course of the experiment the scientist in charge must be prepared to terminate the experiment at any stage, if he has probable cause to believe, in the exercise of the good faith, superior skill and careful judgment required of him that a continuation of the experiment is likely to result in injury, disability, or death to the experimental subject.

    Reprinted from Trials of War Criminals before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals under Control Council.


  7. Sure says:

    Speed Camera Firm a Millionaire Factory

    Posted: 23 Nov 2010 12:02 AM PST

    Millions of dollars paid by motorists in red light camera and speed camera fines end up in the pockets of a handful of individuals. In the United States, American Traffic Solutions (ATS) is responsible for about 41 percent of the nation’s photo enforcement business, but as a private company its dealings are well concealed from public scrutiny. Based on a review of documents marked “confidential — attorneys’ eyes only,” the ATS leadership team has reaped significant personal profit in a short amount of time.

    “I paid through sweat equity of becoming a member of the leadership, and I made a financial investment in the company,” former Wall Street analyst Adam Draizin explained in a December 3, 2009 deposition discussing his joining ATS in May 2004.

    Draizin’s contribution was $500,000 for which he earned an share equal to that of the company’s other three partners. That investment paid off in a big way when Goldman Sachs became the largest shareholder in 2008 with a 30 percent stake. Draizin, John Petrozza, Adam Tuton, James Tuton each share an equal 16.7 percent stake. James Investment (Robert Alpert) held a 3 percent share.


  8. Cathy says:

    Here in Tucson if a photo radar officer blatantly commits perjury, then the evidence of that perjury is simply destroyed.

  9. Stacey says:

    Napolitano shows up at opt out day protest

  10. Stacey says:

    TSA Opt Out day protest photos:


    Phoenix, AZ
    1,122 Volunteers

    Welcome to CameraFRAUD. We are united in our effort to get rid of every speed camera, red light camera, and photo radar van here in Arizona and across the country. We were suc…

    Check out this Meetup Group →

  11. Stacey says:

    Chicago Opt Out Day Protest

  12. Stacey says:

    Homeland Security picking up tab for 250-300 surveillance cameras


  13. Stacey says:

    Opt out protest Wisconsin

  14. Stacey says:

    Opt out protest Boise, Idaho

  15. Stacey says:

    Opt out day Austin

  16. Stacey says:

    Kansas opt out protest

  17. Stacey says:

    Lol. We are change protest video

  18. Stacey says:

    Women being sexually harassed by TSA

  19. Stacey says:

    Petition to end TSA bull crap:


  20. Stacey says:

    Rev. Wright Praises Magazines No Nonsense Marxism

  21. Stacey says:

    TSA Retaliation Against Camerafraud Member


    Phoenix, AZ
    1,122 Volunteers

    Welcome to CameraFRAUD. We are united in our effort to get rid of every speed camera, red light camera, and photo radar van here in Arizona and across the country. We were suc…

    Check out this Meetup Group →

  22. Stacey says:

    Santa Claus Bail Out Hearing

  23. Sure says:

    Big Sis’ Street Scanners Target Of FOIA Request

  24. Stacey says:

    Homeland Security seizes domain names
    By Sara Jerome – 11/26/10 04:25 PM ET

    The investigative arm of the Homeland Security Department appears to be shutting down websites that facilitate copyright infringement.

    Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has seized dozens of domain names over the past few days, according to TorrentFreak.


  25. SHEN says:

    I really hope we can make another go of getting these cameras banned in Tucson. I would be willing to volunteer to gather signatures; I was late on the bandwagon on the last round.

    I was driving my brother’s car to and from my house South of Tucson. I was ticketed going each way. Admittedly, this is my fault in that I was indeed going 52 in a 40. My only excuse in this is a wide open, straight road, and I simply wasn’t paying attention to my speed.

    The troubling part comes from the fact that my brother has been ticketed for these, even though the photo clearly does not look like him.

    Law enforcement has ‘certified’ that this is my brother speeding, even though he was not in possession of the car as I’ve been performing work on it.

    Now I have to find a way to not only convince the court it was actually me, but also repair a strained relationship with him and his wife; he works in law enforcement (not TPD or Sheriff) and stands to get in trouble if convicted wrongfully of my infraction.

    In conclusion, I believe the City of Tucson needs to get back to investing in police officers, not these toys that I think bend the rules of being served by an officer of the law via remote video capture.

    • Have you signed up for our meetup group? Plans for a Tucson initiative are in the works for after the 2011 legislative session. You can keep updated and make suggestions by joining.


      • SHEN says:

        I have indeed joined, I look forward to helping out and am watching for updates. Hopefully with the increased publicity this is getting we’ll get over the signature hump this next cycle. Thanks for running this site!

Leave a Reply to R Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: