ONLY ON 3: Attorney & wife’s run-in with trooper leads to letter to Gov. Perdue


Tags: , , ,

Submitted: Wed, 06/29/2011 - 1:28am
Updated: Wed, 06/29/2011 - 7:40pm
By:

WILMINGTON, NC (WWAY) — A Raleigh attorney is making some big accusations against a Highway Patrol trooper here in New Hanover County.

Hoyt Tessener says the trooper accused his wife of driving drunk, but that’s just the start of the accusations that Tessener made in a nine-page letter to the Gov. Bev Perdue.

Read Tessener’s letter to Gov. Perdue

The Highway Patrol is investigating the allegations against Tpr. Edward Wyrick Jr. What’s also interesting is all the people Tessener sent it to.

Tessener also sent the letter to Lt. Gov. Walter Dalton, Attorney General Roy Cooper, Speaker of the House Thom Tillis, Senate President Pro-Tem Phil Berger, along with area representatives and senators like Thom Goolsby. Tessener even sent the letter to the District Attorney’s office and the Highway Patrol.

In the letter Tessener describes an incident last week involving his wife Gina, who was returning to a friend’s home in Wrightsville Beach after leaving a North Carolina Advocates for Justice gala in downtown Wilmington.

Hoyt Tessener says Wyrick pulled Gina Tessener over just before the Wrightsville Beach bridge. In the letter Tessener says the trooper said he pulled her over because one of her head lights did not work. The trooper then accused Gina of drinking when she had not.
   
Gina refused to do a field sobriety test because she was in heels and a dress and in a gravel parking lot. Wyrick arrested the mother of three and took her to the Wrightsville Beach Police Department for a breath test

According to court documents Gina Tessener passed not just one but two breath tests by blowing a 0.00 each time.

In the letter Hoyt Tessener, who came to the police department to be with his wife, says he thought his wife would be free to go. Tessener said Wyrick yelled at both he and his wife at the police department. Tpr. Wyrick, who Tessener says seemed upset Gina did not fail the breath test, explained that she would have to be taken downtown where only a magistrate can release here.
    
Hoyt says before following the trooper, who still had his wife in custody, he noticed Wyrick texting someone on his phone.

During the trip toward downtown another trooper pulled over Hoyt Tessener, who suspects he was set up by Wyrick. The second trooper let Tessener go after some questioning.
 
Tessener eventually figured out his wife was not downtown, but instead at the New Hanover County Jail in Castle Hayne.

Tessener says the magistrate at the jail asked his wife if she understood what she did wrong. The letter says Gina Tessener told the judge she did nothing wrong and did not understand why she was arrested in the first place.

In the end Gina Tessener’s citation was thrown out for lack of probable cause.

An internal investigation is underway as Wyrick remains on duty.

We reached out to several people including the Tesseners, Gov. Perdue and Tpr. Wyrick himself, but we have yet to get in touch with any of them.

UPDATE: Tuesday evening WWAY received an e-mail from Hoyt Tessener, who apologized for not returning our calls earlier today.

"I wanted to give the SHP the opportunity to investigate," Tessener wrote. "Despite what we went through, I wanted to speak with the SHP first. We heard from SHP at 4 p.m. today. We plan to speak with interal affairs officers tomorrow… I am disappointed to learn that Trooper Wyrick remains on active duty… I am curious to learn about their investigation."

Also, first thing Tuesday morning WWAY requested the dashcam video from Wyrick’s car. The Highway Patrol says his car is not equipped with a video camera.

 

129 Comments

  • bobo says:

    well chalk up another day in N.C. If enough people would file formal complants when they feel a leo has broken the rules of conduct. Then maby perdue will wake up and put her foot down and clean house in the nc highway patrol.As a matter of fact is the state troopers realy nessary when there is all ready local and county leo I allwayes love to see a good train wreck.

  • Guest1999 says:

    I hope that you people check out this trooper’s record:
    http://www1.aoc.state.nc.us/www/calendars.Officer.do?index=Next+25&start

    He seems to be keeping an awful lot of drunks, and otherwise impaired, drivers off of our roads.
    Too bad that it isn’t illegal to be a ‘blowhard troublemaker’, because then someone could arrest Mr. Tessenner! I really hate that the trooper that pulled him over, let him go!
    And sure , why not suspend a trooper who makes so little money anyway, for putting his life on the line everyday! I couldn’t agree more.

  • Guestina says:

    IF you refuse a breathalyzer and are taken to jail that means the law says you are GUILTY until you prove yourself innocent????

    When did this country become a fascist state? Hmmmm?

    The woman was 0.0, there was no alcohol. The trooper was wrong all the way around on this one!

    He wanted to pick up a hot blonde and when she shot him down, he took revenge.

  • Guest342516 says:

    When she refused to take the soberity test, she left the officer little choice.

  • tanya says:

    That’s what we have. Fast to critize, the nc state highway patrol is accepting applications–APPLY!!! Can you bear to see that mangled body, fight with that person that doesn’t want to be arrested, stop a car on a desserted road in the middle of the night.. I’m tired of everybody critizing the people that put their life on the line to protect us. No body is perfect, mistakes get made. Would we have heard about this, if this lady would have been under the influence? This story is base on her account to her husband as to what happened before her husband arrived. Get your name out there lawyer. Maybe if she would have taken the sobriety test at the initial stop, this would not have gone to the jail. Pull the stats on the DWI arrest and convictions in New Hanover Co. My hat is off to the NC State Highway Patrol.

  • PR says:

    Sen. Thom Goolsby, Rep. McComas and others, please follow up on this. After reading Mr. Tessener’s letter to the Governor, I am completely shocked and saddened that this happened right here. This i so completely infuriating and outrageous as to cause incredible anger against Troopers in general as I am feeling towards this Tpr. Wyrick right now.
    He should be suspended immediately until a thorough INDEPENDENT investigation has completed.

  • Raleigh guest says:

    Don’t you think the wife of an attorney knows her rights when she’s pulled over? C’mon people. This is blatant misconduct and he should be rebuked accordingly.

  • MikeG says:

    Are you kidding me with this letter. This is just another man who thinks he has power and will use it to destroy a persons career.
    Why would you mention the make of your car and former titles you held. Was this a resume or a complaint letter. Who cares what you drive and what you do. If any discipline is giving to this Trooper it will once again show that power rules and our North Carolina Political system remains corrupt. This could of all been avoided if the lady would of taken the test from the start. Her husband who claims to be a powerful lawyer should of known this.
    I guess he thinks he is way above the law.
    No one should comment until the WHOLE truth is out. We are going on the word of Mr. Bigshot Lawyer trying to push his so called political power around.
    Y’all talk a good game about how bad the Police are until one of your family members are killed by a drunk driver and then your tune changes.

  • Opinion says:

    I hope this trooper is immediately dismissed from the department. He obviously is on a power trip and thinks he is above the law.

    I have worked in the legal field for many years with a lot of courtroom experience. I have seen, on numerous occassions, police officers with tremendous attidudes. For example, I saw a City of Wilmington police officer get on the stand and lie. The reason I know he lied is because I happed to be a witness to the alledged charges. I happened to be a bystander when an officer arrested someone for being impaired when they were completley sober. This officer illustrated similar behavior as trooper Wyrick. On the stand this officer said the defendant was stumbling to his car before he was pulled. That was not true.

    Of course, in the end, these charges were compeletly dropped but only after this person was put through a humiliating and degrading experience. The trooper was very agressive and unprofessonal.

    I only hope that these corrupt officers can get weeded out so the honest law abiding officers can effectively do their job and the citizens can trust them.

  • JON says:

    Its her right to not take the field Sobriety test and clearly wasn’t believing of the Trooper who said he smelled alcohol when she blew a 0.0! So she knew it was impossible and he clearly had bad judgement. What is sad is the fact that after she blew the 0.0 she still had to go through more of his evil tactics. This man is clearly not capable of doing his job. He needs to be off the road. And hopefully his conduct does not represent all Troopers.

  • Grand Ole Party says:

    No actually you DO NOT have to advise her of her rights because you put cuffs on her. Try again.

  • Wheres Andy when U need him says:

    Looks like Wyrick messed with the wrong person. I know officers have a tough job and feel like there alone out there. The get lied to all the time and can’t trust anyone. I totally respect them for what they do every day. Its a shame that someone egotistical as Wyrick has to tarnish what others work so hard to keep clean. Good for you Mr. Tessener for standing up for what is right and reporting this. Maybe 30 days suspension WITHOUT pay and some people skills training will set Trp Wyrick in his place. Remember……WITHOUT PAY……Us law abiding citizens consider suspended WITH PAY a vacation. I will let my employer suspend me with pay anytime.

  • Guest3455 says:

    Another rich pompas attorney who thinks his stuff doesn’t stink, and is using his social status (or what he thinks is his social status) to play polotics and get his ichy richy wife off.. I am more concerned this was thrown out because of politics. It sounds like he was interferring with an investigation.
    Had any of us lowly under privlidged people had this happen, we would have spent the next few hours in a cell…
    Well Mr. attorney… welcome to the real flippin world… This isn’t a trooper thing, this isn’t a wpd thing… This sort of thing happens all the time. The trooper had every right to take her in for a bal test after she refused a field sobriety test. Was the trooper on a power trip? Probably so… Is the attorney just as guilty as trying to use social status to play politics? Absolutely…
    I wonder if Mr lawyer has ever gone to this length for any of his clients to prove their innocence… I would be willing to bet not… SOunds like they are BOTH on a sick ego power trip…

  • Guest54321 says:

    If you read the account offered in the letter, it was the patrolman who repeatedly referenced how he could not afford a “fancy car” like the one the lawyer’s wife drove.

  • Guest342516 says:

    I thank Trooper Wyrick for protecting us. DWI’s kill thousands of people each year, whether its a indigent, on a suspended license, driving his mother’s unregistered vehicle, or Miss Bigshot, mother of three, whose husband’s a friend of the governor, coming home from a social at the Hilton, it’s his sworn duty to investigate ALL suspected DWIs.

    Half the folks on the road, on a Friday night have had something to drink. Most are not drunk. After a soberity test, most are not even arrested. But when he has a even slight suspesion of DWI, and she refuses to be tested, he has no choice, but to arrest her. If she would have been drunk, and hurt somebody, he could lose his job, and be sued. Her husband is quite a good coach, but she dictated the circumstances, when she refused to take the soberity test.

  • Wrightsville Beach Visitor says:

    My dad was a policeman and my brothe-in-law is a retired NC highway patrolman.
    There are two sides to every story, but IF the trooper did all of this, he should be GONE.
    I can understand a woman in a dress and heels not wanting to walk on a gravel road, especially if she hadn’t been drinking as appears to be the case here.
    The trooper’s report said he smelled MODERATE alcohol on her breath, and she blew a 0.0 — twice.
    He obviously has smell issues or he was making up a reason to take her in.
    And then when she blew a 0.0 TWICE, cuffing her again and taking her all the way from Wrightsville to Castle Hayne???? Cuffed?? Pretty incredible – if it happened.
    Then setting up the husband to be pulled over by another patrolman, who appears not to have found anything wrong with him. Why was the husband pulled over?? Better be a good reason for that, because apparently he wasn’t charged or arrested.
    So we have a Trooper smelling moderate alcohol on a woman who hadn’t been drinking. Cuffing her AFTER she blows 0.0 twice and then having her husband pulled for no apparent reason.
    What do they say about power. It corrupts.
    I applaud any person who stands up for themselves and their spouse, especially when authority abuses power. I hope this Trooper didn’t do all these things, but if he did, lets continue cleaning up the SHP.

  • Ziggy says:

    There is no legal obligation to take roadside breath test, and this lady is lucky she didn’t. If she had, there would be no records of the results, and the officer would probably say the results were positive. There are legal penalties for not taking the Breathalyser. She did and blew a 0.00 TWICE.

    The officer is required to have “probable cause” to administer the roadside breath test unless there is a DWI checkpoint. The report says the probable cause was “moderate smell of alcohol.” Yeah right- the lady had not been drinking. What a crock. The officer was on a power trip.

  • Guest4242 says:

    They have legal arrest authority anywhere in the state on the roads, with the only LEO with more jurisdictional authority being a NC State Wildlife officer.
    The jurisdiction a Patrolman has in the county and where you will see them is on ANY STATE owned road or Highway.

  • PDConcern says:

    When will there be some kind of accountability for these law enforcement officers on power trips. The only agaency that seems to have their act together is WPD. The NHC Sherrif’s Dept has a long ways to go and the SHP has always had a problem with feeling they are above the law. I hope this gets investigeted and action is taken. We don’t need another crooked cop on the roads.

  • the people's champ says:

    I read the lawyer’s letter, and what the lawyer calls “threats” are what the Trooper is required to read to the suspect from a piece of paper. The Trooper also allowed the husband in the room with his wife. It sounds to me like the Trooper was not as barbaric as the lawyer portrays him to be. And the whining about the handcuffs, guess what, when you are arrested you remain in handcuffs, no matter who you are. And how does a Trooper “walk in a threatening manner”? And how did the Trooper try to get the lawyer to punch him? That made no sense at all. Poor lawyer didn’t get his way and now has to lie and cry about it, boo-hoo.

  • lawyer go home says:

    I love how at the end of the lawyer’s letter he threatens to never come back to New Hanover County again. Hey dude, next time stay home, we got enough traffic, one less car on the road. This lawyer clearly states he judges all Troopers now by the actions of this one. Someone help me, what is the word that means defining an entire group based on the bias opinion of one, what is that called, hmmm? What a whiny lawyer, tough up and grow up.

  • Renfield says:

    Perhaps did Tessener steal some doughnuts from Wyrick prior?

  • Dennis Chinn says:

    I have read this article and the full letter to Gov. Purdue. Nowhere in either document does it mention the officer read Mrs Tessener her rights. Also why was Mr Tessener not allowed to act as his wife’s Attorney and able to stay with his wife. I believe law officers have one of the most potentially dangerous jobs and understand the stress of the job, but commonsense and good judgement must prevail. This situation either has alot of information that is not being shared or alot of people are covering up for an officer guilty of very poor judgement. I can’t help wondering if any of the holes in this story will ever be shared publicly. As to Mr. Tessener, being an attorney I think he failed to convey correctly his position as a lawyer that may have had some affect of the outcome of this situation. It doesn’t sound like the officers involve were aware they were dealing with a lawyer. If in fact they were aware of that fact, that only lends to a cover up by our local law enforcement and highway patrol which means that we have preditor police patroling our streets and we all are subject to this type of behavior. I personnaly do not believe that to be true and hope this is truly an isolated incident.

  • Guest14542546 says:

    You guys that are talking crap about Trooper Wyrick obviously have no idea how the law system works. If you practice your right to refuse the road side test (whether you’re impaired or completely sober)as soon as you refuse, guess what, you’re going to jail. End of story. There is no two ways around it. And with this woman being the wife of such a “huge, big time” lawyer (if he can really call himself that) you would think that they knew such simple knowledge as the above mentioned facts. Yeah, you’re a great lawyer, Tessener, good job. If you had to go to court and represent someone for this, guess what, you would lose your case. And you sir, Mr. “big time, i’ll throw any name i can think of” lawyer, should be ashamed of yourself for coming up with such ridiculous and egregious accusations. Go back to Raleigh. Your business is not wanted here. Especially if you think lying your way through the entire complaint is going to get you anywhere.

  • Lowrider says:

    The hundreds of current cases you have charged people with are all about to get dropped pending your immediate termination. With that much revenue gone from fines and court cost, they will have to raise my taxes.

    http://www1.aoc.state.nc.us/www/calendars.Officer.do?index=Next+25&start=0&navindex=0&citnum=&county=999&agency=SHP&officer=wyrick&officerNum=&submit=Search

  • PF says:

    MikeG,
    the outrage here is not over her being brought in to be tested, but for everything else. He was right to bring her in for breathalizer if she refused a field test. But, the issue here is the unprofessional and actionable behavior of the Trooper during and after the whole process – AND, the possible corruption in trying to set up the false arrest of the husband by another Trooper – AND, the behavior of the Magistrate..
    I’m sorry that you can’t see the fundamental lack of fairness here and how this tears at the fabric of the justice system which we all must have faith in as a civil society.

  • Guest54321 says:

    He says he smelled “moderate alcohol” (LOL!–a genius Trooper Cletus is clearly not) on her breath and she blows 0.00?

  • ohmy says:

    It’s called “PRETTY BLONDE PROFILING GONE WRONG”!!!!

  • Guest54321 says:

    You have the same class envy issues as the trooper. Who cares if she is rich, poor, blue or green? The trooper had no right to proceed in the manner he did after the woman blew a 0.00. And if he colluded with another officer to illegally detain the woman’s husband as she was being transported to Castle Hayne, then this guy needs to be fired immediately.

  • Guest2154654 says:

    you know nothing about what really happened that night. why dont you dig up the videos, with audio, from the intox room, and the jail and then you can voice your opinion on how trooper wyrick performed his job. maybe if you werent so incapacitated by all the FALSE media lies then you would be able to understand that wyrick did absolutely nothing wrong. do some more research. you just look like some poorly educated person on a power trip trying to prove a point, well good job because you failed horribly.

  • guest2 says:

    The Starnews New Hanover County salary database shows 26 employees at the Wrightsville Beach Police Department as of summer/fall 2009 data. The total of all salaries was $1,028,331.20, as of 2009. It would seem to me that Wrightsville Beach should be able to police their own little island without the help of the State Highway Patrol.

  • Guestgustd says:

    These guys are on a power trip and it sounds like they messed with the wrong citizen. I hope this is investigated and the trooper is dismissed. This occurs too often–and Wrightsville Beach is full of power-tripping cops!

  • islanddog says:

    take a moment and think about how many folks this super trooper harassed who were not a powerful attorney’s wife. How many Lives he may have ruined or caused significant turmoil in. Im sorry the lady had to go through the ordeal but maybe it will shed some light on the good ole boy system which is in full effect in this county

  • Das Weibstück says:

    Good point Lowrider. There are a lot of DUI’S on that list.

  • Cindy says:

    A few months ago I had an accident and Trooper Wyrick was there. He was very professional and what above and beyond helping us out. He made sure my car was taking care of as well as making sure we got home safely.

  • Grand Ole Party says:

    The officer doesn’t have to read her any rights unless she is being questioned. Predator police patroling your streets…..oooooh. Someone is watching way too much tv.

  • Das Weibstück says:

    Question for all you DUI law aficionados. Is the device for measuring alcohol levels on the side of the road hooked up to any computer system so cops cant write whatever they want on a ticket? How does this work? If she blew 0.0 on the side of the road and then he took her to WB station would she have had another test administered there by another officer?

    Also, if she felt uncomfortable with this officer on the side of the road could she have requested that another officer join them? Or would that have made the situation worse? I wonder if she was telling the officer that her husband was an attorney etc. from the get go and it was pissing him off a bit.

  • Guesttttttt says:

    and most are likely legitimate. If this trooper seems to focus on that particular crime, then hats off to him for that. In case you’ve forgotten, ILM was recently ranked the drunkest cities in the state. Remember what happened to the father/son on River Rd recently – not far from where a teenager killed another cyclist while impaired a couple of years before. Remember what happened to the recent college grad across from Corning a couple of years ago. Those are just from memory. There seems to be a huge problem with driving while impaired in the the ILM area lately. An investigation will determine whether he should remain on duty but until then, keep after those drunks Trooper.

  • SgtsGrl says:

    I totally agree! Furthermore, if Mr. Name Dropping Lawyer decides not to return to Wilmington, New Hanover county or any other county in our area…we are all better for it!

  • Guest342516 says:

    If Mrs Bigshot Lawyer’s wife was driving in high heels, no wonder he pulled her over. High heels are slick, and their unbalance causes the foot to slip off the pedal. They are a hazard. Most women take them off before driving. A trained law enforcement officer, whose job it is to hunt DWIs, before they kill someone, would quickly notice the signs, of a foot slipping off the pedal.

    If Miss Priss refuses to take a soberity test, because her precious toe might scrape a pebble, that is her right. But that left Trooper Wyrick no other CHOICE, but to arrest her. I feel soooooooo sorry for her poor “Grived and Saddened” bigshot lawyer husband. Maybe a few thousand dollars might make him happy. But in this case his wife was wrong, and it looks like he’s gonna have to go find someone else to squeeze.

  • Really says:

    She does have to have her rights read to her when they put the cuffs on her and placed her in the back of the car. You do not only have your rights read to you when you are bieng questioned, and I believe “Have you been drinking tonight?” is a question.

  • Guest234568 says:

    You have an extremely poor grasp of not only police procedure, but the law in general. Brush up by reading the SCOTUS case behind your “rights”: Miranda v Arizona (1966). Having your rights read to you only applies under the following circumstances, when you’ve been arrested and when you are being interrogated (any further questioning related to offense). Upon the initial stop, the individual is not under arrest. The Trooper is simply investigating a potential crime and therefore your Miranda rights do not apply. Even after being placed under arrest, the officer is not required to read you Miranda UNLESS they intend to further question you. Many times this does not take place as no further questions are asked and there is no longer an attempt to build a case or garner information from the individual.

    “It is better to be thought ignorant than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.”

  • Guest0000 says:

    Tessener is a hotshot lawyer with an attitude. I’ve seen their kind on many occasions.

    His wife did not want to do the walk in her high heel shoes? Well, she could have taken them off.

    I can just imagine how snotty she was to the highway patrolman. My sympathies are entirely with the highway patrolmen who are trying to keep drunk drivers off our roads.

  • Guest461 says:

    …to proceed on with the official test at the station. I believe that you can insist on a personal witness of your choice for the “official” BAC test perfomed by calibrated equipment at the station. If one still blows a 0.0, but still appears intoxicated, the officer may suspect drug use and order a blood test. I don’t believe the citation is written until the results of the official test are finalized.

    The troopers are usually pretty darn accurate in their initial suspicions. They DO NOT like to be wrong!

  • Guest342516 says:

    I’m sure she and her Bigshot Lawyer, Professional Victim, Husband, were perfect angels, throughout whole the process. If Trooper Wyrick “Walked Threatenly” and used a horrible statements like “fancy car”. No wonder her poor husband is so “Grived and Saddened”.

    Poor Miss Priss, mother of three. First he has the nerve to expect her to take off her high heels, and possibably scrape her precious, blue-blood toe, on a pebble. Now he is verbally abusing her, by mentioning her “fancy car”.

    Maybe he didn’t realize how important she was. Maybe Trooper Wyrick has this notion that all people are equel under the law, and it is his duty to enforce it without favor. Maybe they would feel less “Grived and Saddened” if we gave them a few thousand dollars, and if Trooper Wyrick lost his job.

  • Guest64541312 says:

    Maybe if you read things correctly you would notice that she was pulled over before the wrightsville beach bridge. Therefore, the trooper was not even on wrightsville beach when the stop was made. If a wrightsville beach police officer had pulled this woman over on the beach, the outcome would have been the same. Troopers also have jurisdiction in the entire new hanover county area. Including; wrightsville beach, carolina beach, monkey junction and so forth.

  • Commonsensenotcommontoday says:

    The suspect must be read his or her rights only when they become a suspect of a crime AND are undergoing or about to undergo questioning. Now, many departments require reading the rights immediately upon arrest as an insurance marker that the rights WERE read, but that’s a local administrative requirement, not a legal requirement.

    So in the example you cite, when an officer approaches your window and asks you if you have been drinking, technically he should NOT be asking that question. He should ask you, “How are you doing tonight, sir? I am officer ______. May I please see your driver’s license, registration, and proof of insurance. Do you know why I stopped you?”

    That engages the driver in a conversation wherein the officer can ascertain from his speech and movements if the driver appears intoxicated. He can then ask you to take a field sobriety test if appropriate.

    The courts have traditionally allowed a large degree of flexibility and tolerance regarding Fourth and Fifth Amendment issues when it comes to motor vehicles and drivers, however, and the basic, underlying finding of most case law regarding drunk driving is that if you blow .08 ALL the rest of the process and procedure becomes purely academic.

  • Sharon Darity says:

    I happen to know Trooper Wyrick and he is an honest, soft spoken Highway Patrolman. He is respected by the citizens of New Hanover County. The law is clear: If you refuse a sobriety test, you go to jail. That has to be carried out, whether officers, or citizens, approve. If I were sober, I would be smart enough to take a sobriety test. And I don’t know of any gravel roads on, or around, Wrightsville Beach. Does anyone else? The only reason to refuse is: (1) you have been drinking and are afraid of being arrested, or (2) You think that you are above the law. Since she blew a(n) 0.0, we all know which category she fits into !We have an outstanding group of Highway Patrolmen here in New Hanover County. I would stake my life on these guys and their ability to keep our streets safe. As a matter of fact, we do, every day. Thank you, Eddie Wyrick, and all of the New Hanover County Highway Patrolmen for all you do!
    Sincerely,
    Sharon Darity

  • Rachel Sophia says:

    Actually there are lots of gravel/dirt/sandy roads around Wilmington. If you lived there you’d know that. Wyrick showed his true colors……… otherwise thgis would nnot have happened in the firsst place.

    One has the right to feel safe in following the requests of the officer. That means driving to a public place – not on the side of a road. Same holds true for sobriety tests as long as its not an extended period of time. That is a far cry from refusing a test.

    If I knew for a fact that my light was not out I’d immediately be on guard and would be suspicious and distrustful especially as a woman and even more so dressed as she was.

    It is inexcusable for any officer to have the attitude Wyrick did when pulling someone over much less a woman alone!!!

    If he can’t be sensitive to that fact if no other then his butt needs to be on administrative duty for the foreseeable future. I bet he’d behave a lot differently if he was being video taped which needs to happen without debate!!

    Personally, I wouldn’t mind seeing his butt in the unemployment line. Inexcusable behavior.

  • Guest12345678 says:

    Sorry, Sharon, but you, as with many on this board, are patently wrong. The only basis for arrest is probable cause, and legally and rightfully refusing a field sobriety test or portable breath analyzer does not constitute probable cause. You are correct, the law is clear, but not as you claim it to be.

  • Guestyourwrong says:

    If you REFUSE a field test they can and will arrest when they have probable cause like smelling alcohol. Do us a favor and look up the law then you can run your mouth.

  • venting says:

    If he was so great he should know a sober person from a drunk one?
    With all his experience and training you would think he could tell?
    Sorry that you feel so safe with the “Highway Patrolmen” but that will change if you ever get stopped for a minor traffic ticket and get the treatment that most people get.. Guess you are one of the lucky ones!!!!

  • Bill says:

    There is a long compicated process a Magistrate must complete if the Magistrate feels there is probable cause,,the Magistrate found no probable cause and released her…whats to investigate?? Everyone seems to miss there are 2 sides to this..DUI..can be charged without alcohol…medication or drugs can impair..i bet if you checked the driving record of those that jump to punish the SHP,,you’d find convictions on most..the troopers did their job,,both were let go. Sometimes royality just dont like being treated the same as the non fancy clubbers!

  • Guest1965 says:

    I have day to day experience working with LEOs and I can tell you for a fact, that they thinkthey are above the law and never make a mistake! I am more than confident that this Trooper did exactly what he is accused of because he saw a pretty women and found out she was married and knew her rights! If I was wearing a dress and high heels I certainly wouldn’t pass any type of balance test on a gravel parking lot—she would have looked guilty and had no witnesses to assist her!

    As for the lawyer writing the letters, I am not a fan of lawyers by no means…taking only jobs they want and letting the poor souls who have been wronged hanging in the wind..but he was right! Why let a LEO get away with this type of harassment..most would only because he is a Trooper and they are afraid of retaliation. Well KUDOS to the lawyer for doing something to help the oridinary people!

    LEOs need to know they are not GOD and not about the LAW.

  • BOBO says:

    Is the state tropers realy needed when we allready have local and county leos. maybe one day perdue will wake up and see just how bad this deal with the highway patrol is makeing her look. She would put her food down and shut down the highway patrol for good. look how much money the state would save.if a complant is made on a state troper in nc he or ahe should be fired on the spot no second chance. this would stop alot of the bs for good

  • FJK says:

    ….. on what “implied consent” means as far as the DMV and how that applies to roadway safety. Also see if you can get your hands on that 9 page letter….. would love to see the spin on this.

    To save the suspense “implied consent” means that when you signed your name in the box at the DMV Drivers License Office you “gave consent” to be tested based on suspicion of impaired driving by a law enforcement officer.

    If you refuse an alco-sensor test on the side of the road… which she did,
    and you refuse to do field sobriety tests….. which she did,
    then based on the odor alone, time of day etc..etc… the Officer has the right, maybe even an obligation, to take you for further testing if he/she reasonably believes you are impaired.

    The fact of whether or not this woman was impaired is later determined in court, not on this forum and in this case, since no probable cause was determined this is a null point so lets stop focusing on that. To be clear if Trooper Wyrick violated any rights, misapplied the law, used his position to “intimidate” this power couple from the big city of Raliegh then the NCSHP will deal with it and I will back thier decision fully. I am sure Ole Bev Perdue will want a report ASAP as to whether a financial campaign donor’s rights were violated. He made that clear by writing a 9 page letter to Bev stating his demands.

    Simply put, this “beautiful blonde”, as some of you have put it, talked herself into going to the WBPD for testing and after “proving herself innocent after arrest” (dumb move) was taken to the magistrate for a finding of No Probable Cause.

    I bet…. even though they appear to be attention starved and media hungry, and appear to know everyone in the State of NC thats needs to be known….. that after all that she wishs she would have just blown 0.00 on the side of the road and enjoyed the rest of her wonderful vacation here at the beach with only a warning ticket for having a headlight out. Way to prove your point lady.

    Just watching the interview on the news tonight proved my suspicions as to the arrogant, pompass, self gratifying personalities of this beautiful couple (the husband especially snobby) and I would imagine that attitude came out very early on during the initial stop and continued throughout the entire encounter.

    Again congratulations on being arrested during your vacation…..might want to get that headlight fixed though, would hate to see a repeat in Wake Co. Believe me, with this couple on the prowl this could have occurred anywhere in the state.

    Oh and again WWAY please do that story….. seems to be a lot of confusion out there as to whether its a right or a privilage to drive on our roadways.

  • Tom Edwards says:

    this officer’s behavior in this situation is horrible. he should be releaved of his job immediately. do the right thing govenor bev and ask for his resignation.

  • officer says:

    Your are wrong in your assertion that if you refuse the field sobriety test you go to jail. The officer is required to take in the totality of the circumstances. He has many other tools to use to determine if someone is under the influence. The fact that he took someone in who blew a 0.00 indicates he did not follow proper procedure and I suspect he will be disciplined for his actions.

  • Ziggy says:

    “The law is clear: If you refuse a sobriety test, you go to jail. ” Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. She voluntarily took the sobriety test, just not the one where Wyrick could lie about the results and lucky for her she didn’t ‘trust him” after he pulled her for no good reason. What was the probable cause to arrest and cuff Ms. Tessener – “moderate smell of alcohol.” That was his pretext, his excuse, his LIE, but it blew up in his face with two 0.00’s. Then he had egg on his face and couldn’t deal with it with integrity. He just had to “show them.”

    Just because you know and like Wyrick doesn’t mean that he did not abuse his power or that he is above the law. Setting up the husband, if proven, will lead to a new career for your friend.– a career where he won’t be able to stand behind his badge and gun to treat folks like crap.

    P.S. As for gravel roads, there are no gravel roads in WB, but there is a gravel parking lot where she was pulled over.

  • Keli says:

    I read the entire letter and sat and watched a video interview with the Tesseners. A lot of the statements that Gina made in the interview did not align with what the letter stated that she said. Whoever was doing the interview did not ask questions like one would expect. She was using the letter as the questions. When it appeared either of the the Tesseners drew a blank, the interviewer would feed some information from the letter. Still, with the letter being the base of the interview, the story they told did not match the letter. It leaves me wondering.

  • its me says:

    Last time I checked, SHP didn’t have cages in their patrol cars therefore his wife, “the prisoner” would have been transported in the front seat of the troopers car not the back seat as his complaint stated. This appears to be a one-sided story and while WWAY tried to get a comment from the trooper and SHP it is a personnel matter therefore they obviously can’t comment. I find it hard to believe that everyone this man and his wife encountered that night was rude, intimidating, yelling and screaming. After all, if you can’t get along with one person, it might be them. If you can’t get along with anyone (tropper 1, trooper 2, sheriff’s deputy at the jail and the magistrate too) its probably you!!! Also, as an attorney he should know that once you arrest someone, you can’t “unarrest” them therefore, Gina would need to go before a magistrate so the magistrate could declare no probable cause.

  • Guest1245484 says:

    I wonder who Mr. Tessener is going to write an 8 page complaint to when he becomes publicly humiliated and embarrassed when the Highway Patrol proves that, Mr. Tessener, is indeed, a liar. Who are you going to go cry to then? Are you going to write another letter to all the officials saying that you have been made a mockery of and you feel as though you have been attacked by the ENTIRE Highway Patrol? Are you going to tell them that you felt threatened and frightened for your life? And you felt as though everyone was slandering your name? All of which was brought to the “people of power’s” attention by you, Mr. Tessener, you of which have lied and lied over and over again. You should have thought about the consequences of what you were doing before you even began coming up with this bogus story. I can’t wait for Highway Patrol to laugh in your face. And it will happen. Just wait. At this point, a simple apology will not suffice for your wrongdoing. Too bad you didn’t have the common sense to think the situation out entirely before trying to make huge, inaccurate accusations. Did you not think that IA would investigate? Do you honestly believe that they don’t already have copies of visuals and audio from the police department? Get real. You’re just a power hungry lawyer trying to cover up his own ignorance. Find a new profession.

  • Guestday says:

    Looks like a dashboard cam might have been helpful in this case. Anyway, I can empathize with this woman’s situation in that I don’t drink and drive. I don’t have any experience with being pulled over and suspected of driving under the influence. I too would have found the situation absurd but our society has mandated a zero tolerance for driving under the influence. It’s getting to where I don’t even want to leave my house. I don’t choose to fly anymore unless I absolutely have to. I don’t like all the hassle with the TSA screening etc. No I’m not saying the screening is unnecessary but I just choose to avoid it if I can. How do you strike a fair balance between safety and infringing on peoples rights?

    If a LEO officer pulls me over, I must comply with the law. It’s just that I don’t have any experience with being tested for DUI and I would have no idea what to expect. I would hope the officer would understand my lack of knowledge about the procedure as just that, and not that I was trying to be difficult and insolent. I didn’t know that if I refused a roadside test, I would be put in handcuffs and taken to a police station. Good to know, I will never refuse one now!

  • Not a local says:

    Actually, looks like she fits into a 3rd category (3) you know objective testing is smarter than subjective testing when dealing with small-town officers. This officer clearly was looking for something that wasn’t so (“smell of alcohol”) and she was smart enough to know it. Waiting for an actual objective test as opposed to a subjective test was the right call in this case. Should be a lesson to all of us that need to deal with small-town officers. Their “word” against yours is a terrible place to be in. That’s great that you “know” this trooper personally but have you ever had to deal with him in a “non-friend” situation? The face people put on for the public/friends can be totally different when they are in private – – interesting he didn’t have a video/cam on his car.

  • Guest103 says:

    Okay, let me start by saying I know Wyrick and have never seen him yell at anyone. But of course, this poor little attorneys wife felt threatened! Sounds like if anyone got set up here it was the Trooper. I guarantee her husband has told her numerous times that if shes pulled after drinking not to do anything, GOOD FOR HIM…BUT look where that got her. Maybe she’s just getting the publicity she wanted and her few minutes of fame. And then she and her husband talk about her being handcuffed! When have you ever seen someone go into a police car with them? It’s policy everywhere that I know of that if you arrest someone they go in handcuffs. Oh and the law was followed by him being allowed to view the test, but when thats over its time to leave the holding area. Sounds like someone thought they could do what they wanted and didn’t want to leave. Well…when a officer tells you that you gotta leave, guess what, you gotta go.

    Also, I want the investigators to talk to people at the event and I bet they find she had consumed some amount of alcohol. Oh, and everyone that keeps saying she blew .00, you can consume alcohol and blow .00. Alcohol does leave your body over time and if she was drinking earlier shes going to have the odor even if she blows .00. Also, she said she felt unsteady on her feet due to her attire…Wouldn’t that make someone think she was impaired if shes staggering around in heels? All she had to do is blow into the alcosensor road side and this would have never happened. She wouldn’t even have had to take a sobriety test. And to the Einstein husband/attorney that wants to know why she had to blow twice if the first was a .00, thats what the state requires! WOW look what i just learned. Maybe you should stick to your injury laws and not traffic. Thats why you sit behind a desk taking peoples money and then go home at 5 while LEO are out there in the streets risking their lives so that you sleep safe at night. Get a life!!!

  • SurfCityTom says:

    around the Tesseners’ ears.

    In his letter, Mr. Tessener states his wife was wearing an evening dress. An evening dress is typically ankle length or slightly longer.

    In the video from the magistrate’s location, she is clearly wearing a cocktail dress which is slightly more than knee length. And those shoes are hardly high heels.

    What a tangled web the attorney weaves, when he seeks to deceive.

    When all the dust settles, I hope the NC State Bar will step in ajnd investigate the actions of Mr. Tessener.

  • TJC says:

    Whats unbelievable this stuff happens in NH County all the time, She obviously was innocent, she wasn’t intoxicated and yes they risk their lives and are appreciated but a badge doesn’t give you the right to abuse the power given to you by the people for the people, they themselves are not above the law and also have rules to follow. When i served the people in federal law enforcement I would never dream of doing some of the things I have observed and heard of in NH county its a disgusting example of the use of authority and it makes me cringe.

  • H Gardner says:

    It is obvious that Trooper Wyrick is a pig in the fullest sense of the word. There is no excuse for his behavior and anything short of termination would be an affront to the people of North Carolina.

  • IRABADSTOCKGOOD says:

    Let me tell you a short story. A trooper was accussed of harrassing my wife and I got a letter from a “colonel” that said it was under investigation and they would make findings and deal with it accordingly” They moved him a county over for a while and then back. It will be a bad day. And to add to the incompentence of our Governor, one of the nice troopers you see on the side of gas pumps telling you not to drive off, has had some fidelity issues of her own. You really need to go back. In the banking business we call this an external audit.

  • Richard M. Peacock says:

    Unbelievable, Obviously you think it’s ok for LEOs to break the law. When the Federal guys arrest this trooper, lets see what they can charge him with. False Imprisonment (arrest,) conspiricy to falsely arrest her husband, obstruction of justice, violatiion of civil rights under First, fourth and fourteenth amendment. How can anyone condone this behavior. We can thank Ben David that saw to it that after Christopher Long and the New Hanover Sherrifs murdered Peyton Strickland the grand jury got loaded with fellow deputys. I want to know who the Magistrate was the night of the arrest. He should be charged as well.

  • Ziggy says:

    Oh really ? You are not required by N.C law to submit to the roadside test. Had she done so, the trooper could’ve said something to the effect of: “Well, the roadside test showed she had consumed alcohol,” and there would be no record- just his word. We have the much more sensitive breathalyzer which recorded a 0.00 followed by a 0.00.

    What exactly was the probable cause to arrest her ?
    – A light out on her car isn’t adequate ?
    – “Moderate smell of alcohol” was obviously bogus- see Breathalyzer results.
    – Refusing to do what you were told to do even though the trooper had no legitimate reason to tell you to do it- BINGO.

    She was NOT legally obligated to take the test.

    He WAS legally obligated to have “probable cause” before charging her with DWI and arresting her.

    She complied with the law. He did not. Police are NOT above the law.

  • thinblueline says:

    I am somewhat taking back by your comment that you work with LEO’s on a daily basis and that they think they are above the law. Maybe you meant to say that most think they are above the law. I take offense with being included in your overall comparison. I will be the first to agree that their are those that fall into your named category but every
    LEO does not.
    HP needs a refresher course in the importance of Dash Cams, I can assure you that I do not get out of my cruiser without ensuring that mine is activated (audio and video). A true professional will always remain professional and will be prepared to defend him/herself at any given time with that wonderful thing we call dash cams. I agree that “LEO’s need to know they are not God” but just know that there are those of us that actually serve a God and we do not fall into this group. Best regards……

  • Guest75 says:

    Never mind the fact that he didn’t even have probable cause to pull her over.

  • Guest Lady says:

    Wise up, people. We live in a police state, and it’s getting worse all the time. Homeland security, TSA, nazi-like LEOs, you get the picture. If you think the government (local, state, federal) is here to protect you, you are wrong. Government exists to protect itself and grow bigger. That people are duped into thinking otherwise is shameful, but there comes a time when the sheeple need to wake up and start taking back the liberty that’s been eroded away by indifference and non-action. Stand up against encroachment on your freedom.

  • Joe6 says:

    All of the officers here in Wilmington are nothing but two face idiots! they have nothing better to do then harass people. While they let those drunks walk out of the bars at 2 am in the morning just watching them and do nothing. The lot of them need to be fired!

  • Ziggy says:

    The trooper wrote “moderate smell of alcohol” and made no mention of any problems driving or communicating. You can be sure he would’ve included “prescription drugs” in his report if he had suspected that, especially after the two 0.00’s.

    As for her “looking like she had an attitude” or being rude, where is any reference in the report to her being non-cooperative, rude or combative. The answer is “NOWHERE.” How you can infer a personality from that picture is mind-boggling.

    And for the guy who finds it odd she had NOT been drinking, maybe she chose not to drink since she had to drive. Is THAT suspicious or is it commendable ? The Breathalyser doesn’t lie twice does it.

    Wyrick went with the “moderate smell of alcohol” in a person who hadn’t been drinking— OOOPS !

    Some of you seem to be looking for an excuse to defend the trooper and are doing so by making stuff up. Maybe that’s because it “sounds too bad to be true,” but such stuff happens frequently but usually not to people who aren’t able to do anything about it. If it happened to you or a loved one of yours, you’d change your tunes.

    The thing that I cannot get over is the trooper telling the husband to follow him “downtown” and then seemingly having him pulled. If that is not what happened, why was the husband let go without so much as a warning ticket. If that is in fact what happened, Wyrick should not be wearing a badge and should be canned.

    I suspect that Trooper #2 decided he didn’t want to be part of the nonsense once he realized what was really happening, and good for him !

    Let’s see what the investigation reveals.

  • RolloTomasi says:

    This comment board is a jacuzzi of misinformation and half-wit comments.

    Haha…post more, people.

    All I know is that in a tit for tat world: Don’t mess with Hoyt Tessener’s wife.

  • Kim says:

    She should not have refused the test, regardless. Did he have a breathalizer with him? Here in IN, you refuse, you go to jail, period.

  • sharon darity says:

    If the husband was pulled over, he was doing something to get pulled over for. Of course the letter doesn’t mention it! Duh! The letter was written by the lawyer and none of the media is listening to anyone but that pompous ass!!
    I assume that once the second trooper heard the man’s story, he let him go out of kindness. What a jerk that second trooper must have been. Could we all just wait for the investigation to be done?
    I am sure that Trooper Wyrick is not allowed to defend himself in the public media. What a shame that we, as a community, immediately bash the Trooper who has taken many drunks off of our streets. Has anyone checked Trooper Wyricks record? No, because I am sure that you would find that Trooper Wyrick has an exemplary record. But hey, why not just accuse him of wrongdoing? If you read the letter, you would note that Trooper Wyrick also offered to give her a breathylizer test in his car. She REFUSED! Hello, am I the only person who read this? I’ve met this Trooper and he is not big enough to be in any way threatening. And he was just doing his Job!!!
    Why is it okay to sensationalize this ‘lawyer’s’ accusations? Maybe he is treated differently in Raleigh, but here in New Hanover County we treat everyone the same. By Law.
    Did you read the part about the Magistrate ‘yeeling’ at this woman? Come on, not just Trooper Wyrick was abusive, but also a Magistrate? Does this really ‘sound’ like the truth? Really?
    I sure hope this lawyer does not cause this Trooper to lose his job. That would be the real’crime’ here.

  • guesty says:

    If he was following the trooper because he didn’t know where to go, the trooper was speeding as well.

  • Dman says:

    Where does this story mention that the husband was speeding for the second trooper to pull him over. I can not find it anywhere. Sounds like you are trying to fabricate probable cause when none existed.

  • Carol Kramer says:

    “As soon as Gina refused the road side sobriety test, after the trooper had probable cause to request one, she automatically relinquished her right to prove her innocence.”
    The officer apparently did not have probable cause to request a sobriety test, proven by that fact that she later blew 2 ZEROs. No one automatically relinquishes their right to prove their innocence. The burden is not on the citizens to prove innocence…this is presumed.

    “If you’re innocent, then prove it.” This is so wrong headed and counter to our justice system that I just pray that you are not involved in law enforcement in any way, shape or form. It’s sad enough that you are a citizen and don’t understand this.

  • retphxfire says:

    What you have is a citizen who happens to be a legal expert knowing what the trooper allegedly did was beyond the law. It will be interesting to hear more details, but so far it looks, smells and walks like a trooper with some issues, personal or professional, that led him to pick on the one person who had NOTHING he could hang a charge on and wasn’t very happy about it (see 2nd trooper’s actions, he let it drop). Defending one party because of their job and condemning another party because of THEIR profession is just childish…kind of like the trooper.

  • Guest9743 says:

    What you have here is a lawyer that thinks he and his wife are above the law and shouldn’t be stopped or questioned by any law enforcement official. He probably does have some kind of connection in Raleigh and wants to get this trooper fired simply because his wife was stopped and questioned. A typical lawyer!!!!

  • Rachel Sophia says:

    Thank you for being an intelligent vioce in so much nonsense.

    I suspect a good percentage of the pro Wyrick comments by well be his buddies on the force.

    Wyrick’s accomplice in this matter should also get some scrutiny in this matter. He had to be aware of the situation at least that this was not a rouutine act on his part.

    For those of you upset with the attorney, you should keep in mind, it would take someone who is an officer of the court to be given any credibility compared to us everyday folk. Pretty much way abuse of power happens… we have little chance of being heard much less believed by the ‘system’ if for no other reason than the many backs being protected and backed. Think about it.

    As Ziggy pointed out, this man, this couple, contribute more too their communities than most of you ever think about doing. It also wouuld be a pretty safe bet, this couple are property owners in New Hanover County as well as Raleigh so you can tell them to go home all you want. Don’t be surprised if you see them in your markets and stores ……… supporting your community.

    I’m just an everyday kinda gal but Wyrick probably would have gotten ‘attitude’ from me if I knew the pull was bogus. I would have demanded to get a supervisor on scene and to make sure the event was being recorded if at all possible beeffore agreeing to anything …. which would have been my right in America!!

  • retphxfire says:

    I disagreed with most of the comments condemning the lawyer, praising the trooper…I feel, though, there is a misunderstanding in many comments. IN MOST JURISDICTIONS it is illegal to refuse a field sobriety test, in some it’s considered an admission of guilt. I would guess it’s to keep obviously impaired drivers off the road, but like many laws it can also target innocent drivers, causing them a whole lot of grief.

  • Guest698*478589 says:

    Did you miss the part about the other trooper letting Tessner go??? You are just a person who hates cops and troopers, you must have a record for running into the law. Do us all a favor, and by us all I mean the people who abide by the law, and shut up. You have no clue about anything to do with this case. You only know what the media is telling you. Didn’t your parents ever tell you not to believe everything you hear on tv??? I guess not. Trooper Wyrick was only doing his job, and getting drunks off the road. Do you know how many people in this town drive drunk and kill the people they hit??? If you do not then you are not listening to the right news. Don’t bash somebody because you want to, when you do not know the facts. Get your facts straight then maybe we will let you complain.
    I say good job Wyrick, good job.

  • Ziggy says:

    Sorry, you’re the one without a clue about the “law system.” Your statement that:

    “If you practice your right to refuse the road side test (whether you’re impaired or completely sober)as soon as you refuse, guess what, you’re going to jail. End of story”

    is flat wrong. You don’t go to jail unless there is probable cause, unless some jerk like Wyrick goes off on his power trip.

    As for Mr. Tessener going back to Raleigh, please work on your reading comprehension. One key point of the letter was that there was a convention in town bringing MUCH-NEEDED tourist dollars to our local economy. The lawyer mentioned his position on the Board of Governors because in that position he was one of the people who brought this convention to Wilmington.

    Your telling him to “go back to Raleigh” is essentially saying “take your much-needed money out of local economy”, which thousands of unemployed and underemployed folks here would strongly disagree with.

    For those of you supporting Wyrick, did you miss the part about Tessener mysteriously getting pulled while following his wife from Wrighstville Beach to the jail ? Do you think it is okay for a trooper to set up someone as “punishment” for his wife NOT being drunk and thereby embarrassing the trooper.

    And how do you feel about the trooper taking this woman to jail in Castle Hayne in CUFFS after she blew 0.00 TWICE ? He “showed her” didn’t he !

    For those who point out that we should remember that we may need Wyrick if there’s a terrible accident or a drunk driver, that IS a valid point, but he took himself off the roads for 3 hours to “deal with” a 50 year old lady who had not been drinking and was not even speeding. So why would he do that ? Why would he comment about her “fancy car”, which was a 5 year old mid-level Lexus ? Here’s your answer- Wyrick has a serious attitude problem, and he was abusing his power.

    The NC Highway Patrol had a great reputation for decades, but lately there’s been a lot of bad press. That is sad, but the bad apples should be weeded out. We pay their salaries, and they are supposed to “protect and to serve”, not “show off and set up.”

  • Gues545454t says:

    Sorry if you feel that what i said was inaccurate. If a LEO (law enforcement officer) can SMELL alcohol on someone then he has probable cause. Maybe you should do your homework a little bit more and get ALL the facts straight. Keep in mind that the only side of the story that you are hearing is from the lawyer and his wife. To me it sounds like Trooper Wyrick did his job accurately and this big shot lawyer and his wife thought that they were above the law. Well guess what, to not raise confusion and discrimination accusations against oneself everyone gets treated with the same amount of respect. Whether you’re a lawyer or a sheriffs wife. The law is the law. No if, and’s or buts about it. And do you really think that this trooper set Tessener up to get pulled over? Tessener would not have gotten pulled over if he wasn’t doing something that rectified him getting pulled over to begin with. The lawyer “cleverly” left that little bit of information out, didn’t he? Lay off the trooper bashing. Wait until all the facts come out. Then you can see who is on a power trip. This lawyer is just dropping names to make himself sound even more powerful. Well, good for him, but when he tells constant lies in the complaint how well is that going to look on him? All he is doing right now is ruining his reputation, and that’s fine. but he doesn’t have to drag this trooper down with him. Don’t you think that if this Trooper Wyrick was as awful as they are making him sound then hundreds of other dui “victims” of his would have come forward with complaints? Use some common sense. Not all officers you may come in contact with are on a power trip, and this one in particular surely was not. Everything would have been avoided if she had swallowed her pride and submitted to a road side test. She could have taken her heels off and performed the test with ease. And the reason that she had to blow into the toximeter twice is because they HAVE to do two separate readings. They blow once and then they reset the toximeter and the person has to blow again. As soon as Gina refused the road side sobriety test, after the trooper had probable cause to request one, she automatically relinquished her right to prove her innocence. If she hadn’t been drinking, then why not submit to the road side test? It would appear that she was trying to hide something, especially if the trooper claimed he smelled alcohol. Why would he make that up? And accusing him of texting another trooper? Really? Ok, accuse him, and then pull his phone records and see if he actually did it. Prove that any of these accusations happened and i’ll shut my mouth. But until then, that lawyer is a dumb ass. And has no right to slander this trooper. He didnt get his way, boo-hoo. If you’re such a big shot lawyer then you should have known that your wife had two choices; submit to the road side test or get arrested. It’s pretty simple. If you’re innocent, then prove it. Otherwise, you’re setting yourself for trouble.

    GET THE FACTS RIGHT. THINK ABOUT THE TROOPERS SIDE OF THE STORY. DON’T BELIEVE EVERYTHING YOU HEAR JUST BECAUSE THIS LAWYER CAN DROP A FEW NAMES.

    People lie, did you ever think of that? Maybe this lawyer is LYING. Chill out with the bashing and wait for all the facts.

    Oh, and have a good day. Hopefully you don’t have any run-ins with the law, because you obviously have some anger towards them. And we wouldn’t want someone else lying their way through a complaint just to try and prove a point. (which this lawyer is obviously trying to do, and which he is going to fail miserably at, too)

  • FJK says:

    I bet if she had taken the roadside test we wouldnt be having this conversation now……

  • SurfCityTom says:

    thanks for the correction.

  • Brock says:

    By the rules of the Internet you’ve lost your argument before you started. By breaking Godwin’s Law you’ve proven yourself the lowest common denominator unable of formulating an actual argument and resulting to calling people nazis.

  • ChallengetheWorld says:

    Is that impairment does not necessarily mean ALCOHOL. Impairment can come from many different elements and items. Clearly, you can read from the letter from the attorney that he is stating his opinion and doing a good deal of paraphrasing. I believe that he feels if he sends this letter to enough people that someone will just act in jest. Untrue, North Carolina Highway Patrol is a fine organization, however, there can always be officers who exercise lack of judgement and unprofessionalism.

    As stated above this is ONE SIDE OF THE STORY. A very biased one side of the story. Need we mention the overal persona of Attorneys? Who do you call when you get in trouble?

    Lets see what the facts of the story present. I can tell by reading this letter that there were several events in the course of the “story” that were exxagerated for the persuasion of the reader. An attorney never cares if someone is guilty or innocent…he just needs to disprove the prosecutions case.

  • Guest54321 says:

    “I have always said in lieu of budget problems the patrol should be disbanded and the Sheriff’s Office be given State Money to add traffic officers to do the same work the Patrol continually abuses.”

    Excellent proposal. I have a great deal of respect for my local sheriff and police department and many law enforcement people I know regard the NCHP as a joke and a blot on the work done by competent law enforcement agencies. The Highway Patrol is just institutionally broken; a reorganization alone will not remedy the problems that corrupt it to the core.

  • Truthseeker says:

    I hope this attorney sues the NC Highway Patrol out of existance. I have always said in lieu of budget problems the patrol should be disbanded and the Sheriff’s Office be given State Money to add traffic officers to do the same work the Patrol continually abuses. This is at least the 4th incident with them just this year. As a ex police officer retired many Officers had no respect for the Highway Bunglers. They only enforce traffic laws and investigate accidents. If you get robbed, your house broke into, anything other than traffic you call Police not the Highway Bunglers. Local Police and Deputies provide much more security and are more sensitive to real crime problems.I have seen on more than one occassion troopers who overstep their authority, intentionally cause distress to citizens they are sworn to protect. I tell you the Highway Patrol is not a friend to citizens. They have a unwritten creed that we are the enemy and love to brag about their arrest and ticketing of citizens to each other. They violate the traffic laws they love to enforce as much as any of us. Also, the trooper who stopped the attorney needs to be fired with the arresting Officer. What reason did he have to stop the attorney other than harass him because the other trooper was upset. This type behavoir I guarantee is not tolerated by the WPD or the Sheriff’s Office. Also, why do troopers always hang around the beach. Their title is highway so they belong on the highway and not Lumina Avenue. I have no respect for them, never had, never will.

  • RRD says:

    You have no respect for them probably because your application was denied.

  • Guest54321 says:

    The state should disband the organization and start over. The Highway Patrol can no longer use the excuse it is just a few rogue troopers giving them a bad name. Instead, the NCHP appears to be riddled with unprofessional conduct and worse. Increasingly, even decent, law abiding people express a complete lack of respect for them. They have become a running joke and a stain on good law enforcement officers in general.

  • Ken Goch says:

    It’s not only the Patrol. There are also thugs in the New Hanover Sheriff’s Dept. who’s actions are condoned and covered up by Ed McMahon and his fellow National Socialist subordinates.

    I don’t think that it’s a coincidence that they were “Brown Shirts”. It is their legacy.

    This is a real danger to all citizens and it must be rectified.

  • SurfCityTom says:

    he carbon copied everyone but God and the Devil & maybe Scott Pikney.

    While I am not an attorney, I believe NC statute require a driver to submit to a field sobriety test or breathalizer test on the spot where they are pulled over. No exceptions allowed. I beleve there is an automatic 60 day license suspension for refusing.

    If half the reported actions are valid, the Officer needs to fall on his sword.

    I was pulled over in Edenton just last week. The officer reported someone had called the station to report my vehicle was being operated by someone clearly under the influence. The officer could clearly determine from our conversation I was not impaired; had not had anything to drink; and declined my offer to submit to a breathalizer. Those things happen all of the time apparently; and he was apologetic in allowing me to proceed. My lesson, don’t drive through Edenton; there are too many old foggies with nothing else to do.

  • Ziggie says:

    “While I am not an attorney, I believe NC statute require a driver to submit to a field sobriety test or breathalizer test on the spot where they are pulled over. No exceptions allowed. I beleve there is an automatic 60 day license suspension for refusing.”

    That is not correct. There is no obligation to submit to the roadside breath test, but there are significant penalties for not submitting to the Breathalyser at the station. In theory, a driver can be asked to do the roadside test ONLY if there is “probable cause.” A “headlight out” is not probable cause for a sobriety test, and the “moderate smell of alcohol” on the police report is curious to say the least since the lady clearly had not been drinking.

    If this lady had taken the roadside breath test, I bet the trooper would’ve said it was positive, and there would be no record to prove he was being untruthful.

  • Me155585 says:

    If she refused to take a soberity test, she left him very little choice in the matter.

  • Guest7969 says:

    I KNOW these guys have a DANGEROUS and difficult job…but I have NO ROOM for sympathy and LOATHE officers like this who use their badge to be A-HOLES…

  • sickofit says:

    a power tripping officer. If her citation was thrown out for lack of probable cause, it also sounds like a lawsuit to me.

    “he noticed Wyrick texting someone on his phone.”

    Isn’t texting while driving against the law?

    “another trooper pulled over Hoyt Tessener, who suspects he was set up by Wyrick. The second trooper let Tessener go after some questioning.”

    What was he stopped for?

  • Truth says:

    sickofit, if you read the silly letter the lawyer made up you will see that the texting occurred in the police dept, not while driving. Nice try trying to also make the Trooper look bad for doing nothing wrong. For crying out loud, the Trooper even brought her a cup of water she requested at one point. The lawyer also doesn’t understand the law very well if he thinks the Trooper can have a magistrate come to them or do a p.c. hearing over the phone. The lawyers complaints are actually the Trooper following the rules of law (the laws made by lawyers that this lawyer obviously doesn’t understand).

  • Ken Goch says:

    I was assaulted by a Sheriff’s Deputy, in a court room, who was later arrested for assaulting his wife and child. There is a culture of bullying in both the Sheriff’s Office and with the State Troopers because they know they can get away with it.

    As long as people like Sheriff Ed McMahon and Judge Sandy Criner protect the thugs no citizen will be safe.

    I ended up in jail for being attacked by a deputy of ill repute and no one was willing to help.

    That is criminal and the culprits are all in the system.

    Get rid of the arrogance, get rid of the Nazi’s in police uniforms, get rid of McMahon and his staff and get rid of Sandy Criner and her warped interpretation of civil rights.

  • Guest1234567 says:

    Good for you Mr. Tessener for standing your ground and not letting this rogue Highway Patrol get away with this. I would want to see the dash-cam. If there isn’t one, the Patrolman should be fired immediately. That would prove his guilt and Rambo attitude. I could not imagine this happening to me, now I know it could.

  • Dman says:

    I know this story leaves a lot out. But I am trying to figure out what the probable cause Tpr. Wyrick used for the arrest of Gina Tessener. Did he smell an odor of alcohol on her, was she driving erratically, or was her speeched slurred when she was talking to him. I can not see how the trooper can articulate probable cause for a DUI arrest based on a headlight not working on her vehicle. Then when he takes her into custody and transports her to the Wrightsville Beach Police Department to perform a breath test, she passes not one but two tests with a 0.00 reading. After the breath test, this trooper then transports her to the New Hanover County Jail to appear before the duty magistrate. While this is going on another trooper then pulls over the husband of Tressener. This trooper lets the husband go after several questions. Again, what was the probable cause or violation that warranted this trooper to pull over the husband. I thought the motto for the police was To Serve and Protest, not To Harass and Annoy. If this story is true, then we all need to worry because those that abuse their positions of responsibilty are dangerous and can not be trusted. Once the trust is gone there isn’t much left.

  • izzy says:

    He was speeding. Sounds like probable cause to pull someone over to me.

  • Guest1023 says:

    You really need to check out the whole story,. She didn’t ‘go to jail’ the trooper did his job. The Magistrate decides the final outcome!!

  • venting says:

    Last time I checked 0.00 two different times is a sober person–he wasnt doing his job getting drunks off the road–he was wasting taxpayer money chasing after sober ones…..

  • Guest1022 says:

    So the jails are really going to be full if 0.00 is the new limit for dui’s.

  • venting says:

    Being a “little snitty” if she was is no excuse for his actions–many people go to many places without drinking–here is another person sterotyping “well-to-do middle aged woman again—Hard to believe she didnt have a drink? whatever man!!! Is this the best defense for the troopers actions and poor judgement–shame on him and you

    It probably boosted his ego to think he had caught a well to do woman doing something wrong—- but he didnt’t.

  • Guest666 says:

    I think there is more to this story. Somehow I cannot see a middle-aged well-to-do woman going to a fundraiser and not having something to drink. Maybe she did not, I am not accusing her. Also, I suspect that she might have gotten a little snitty with the officer. That is not a good thing to do. He had a reason to suspect she had been drinking. I hope WWAY will stay on top of this one. Anyhow, Officer Wyrick seems to have been doing his job according to the link, by getting a lot of drunks off the road. He might have even saved the life of someone who replied here wanting him terminated.

  • Das Weibstück says:

    Guest666, not everyone drinks. I have 1 a year. She did blow a ZERO.

  • MsNimitz25 says:

    I usually order Diet Coke or coffee when I know I’m going to be driving. Woman can’t absorb as much alcohol and still be sober enough to drive as can men (due to size differences, I suppose), so it is not uncommon to see women drivers not drinking at events where male drivers feel free to have 2 or 3 drinks. Unfortunately, men seem to be greater risk-takers when it comes to booze and driving. I’m not saying this lady did not drink (how would I know?), but I am saying that it is not at all unreasonable to believe that she did not.

  • venting says:

    Apparently people care–I keep saying the same thing–
    They are sterotyping this woman—Shame on people

  • BL says:

    Re-read the letter. The Trooper was supposedly texting at the station AND WHILE DRIVING from Wrightsville Beach to the Sheriff’s Dept.

  • venting says:

    The comment she looks like she has the capacity to take a snotty tone? What do people say you look like? An Ass!!!
    Let me guess you are a state trooper!!!!

  • Brian says:

    She looks like she has the capacity to take a snotty tone when she feels like she’s not in charge. And yes, she was wrong to refuse a roadside sobriety test. She probably gave the trooper attitude, (‘do you KNOW who I am, and who my HUSBAND is?’) and I don’t blame him a bit for making her life difficult for a few hours in an attempt to make her understand that she’s subject to laws like everyone else. Let’s wait for the official SHP report.

  • Guest54321 says:

    Who cares how wealthy she is or what she was driving? How is this in any way relevant to what happened that night?

  • Guest54321 says:

    The road to fascism is paved with attitudes like yours.

  • Guest54321 says:

    Give me a break. I was in an accident a few years back and the teenage driver that plowed into the back of me at a school bus crossing benefited greatly from the near illiteracy of the trooper who wrote up the accident report. My insurance company could not believe what a shoddy job the guy did.

    How come nearly all of these troopers are a “Jr”. anyway? Most of the time it is because Daddy Sr.was an illustrious trooper as well. That is their big credential. So, you see, it is really no big deal joining an organization rife with nepotism, cat killers, possessors of child porn, etc. etc.

  • truthseeker says:

    To the comment my application was probably denied is the response from a complete and total incompetent. Respect is earned no matter what your position in life. The accusations againist this trooper is what causes no respect issues for all Law Enforcement. This one act of the “John Wayne” syndrome is quite believable. Since you have never been in Law Enforcement you are unfamiliar with this. So spout your mouth off. You are clueless and quite uniformed. By the way I never applied to SHP, Charlotte PD was enough for a career.

  • Local Citizen123 says:

    First, you’re all reading accounts of this by the wife and lawyer husband.

    As much a people don’t like cops in general, do you really believe that this went like this? Really?

    Don’t you think that some lawyer from Raleigh might know just the right words to use in this letter to elicit the correct response HE’S looking for? Put a few bullet comments in there and you will get attention, but no one should be condemning anyone yet. I think there WAY MORE to this story than the lawyer is letting on with.

    If that trooper is that bad, don’t you think that at least ONE of the over hundred defendants on his court list would have filed at least a complaint?

    Get real and open your eyes. Definitely one thing that the trooper did was keep one more pompous jerk from moving here. Thanks Trooper !!!

  • Carol Kramer says:

    Hey, WWAy…There are a lot of good questions mixed in with the comments. I would love to see a follow-up article on our rights when stopped by the police. Was Mrs. Tessener ever arrested? If not, why did she have to appear before a magistrate to be released? If Officer Wyrick did not have a video dash camera, why not? How many/what percent of Highway Patrol cars have cameras? Did the officer who stopped Mr. Tessener have a video dash camera? Did the car that Mrs. Tessener was driving actually have a headlight out?

    We have entered a world where we are being treated as criminals on daily basis (i.e. drunk driving check points and airports with NO probable cause.) I applaud Mr. Tessener for raising his voice as loud as he can.

  • capitanobvious says:

    Many, if not most DWI’s are now written for prescription drug use. Im not defending the officer, because it seems like he may have given them a little extra run-around, but the officer could have inferred that she was impaired on some other substance than alcohol.

  • Ziggy says:

    The trooper wrote “moderate smell of alcohol” and made no mention of any problems driving or communicating. You can be sure he would’ve included “prescription drugs” in his report if he had suspected that, especially after the two 0.00’s.

    He went with the “moderate smell of alcohol” in a person who hadn’t been drinking— OOOPS !

    The thing that I cannot get over is the trooper telling the husband to follow him “downtown” and then having him pulled. If that is what happened, Wyrick should be canned. If that is not what happened, why was the husband let go without so much as a warning ticket. I suspect that Trooper #2 decided he didn’t want to be part of the nonsense once he realized what was really happening, and good for him !

  • Liberty Bell says:

    Local Citizen 123, you are clueless. Why applaud the corrupt trooper? You’d be singing a different tune if this had happened to you.

  • Liberty Bell says:

    An investigation of this matter will reveal that the lawyer’s letter is correct. Then, all of you bad-cop apologists can have a chance to wipe the egg off your face…if you have the sense to do that.

Leave a Reply