make WWAY your homepage  Become a fan on facebook  Follow us on twitter  Receive RSS Newsfeeds  MEMBERS: Register | Login

FIRST ON 3 UPDATE: Couple's story doesn't match trooper's report, video

READ MORE: FIRST ON 3 UPDATE: Couple's story doesn't match trooper's report, video

WILMINGTON, NC (WWAY) -- We're learning more tonight about the Raleigh couple that wrote a letter to the governor accusing a trooper of intimidation. It's a story WWAY broke Tuesday.

There are several discrepancies between what Gina and Hoyt Tessener say happened and the DWI report written by Tpr. Edward Wyrick.

According to the DWI report Wyrick pulled Gina Tessener over around 11 p.m. on Tuesday, June 21, near Wrightsville Beach. He said Tessener turned onto Airlie Road and then another immediate right into a hotel parking lot. Tessener later said that she was in a gravel lot, but the lot is not gravel.

Read the DWI report

Tessener also said after the incident that she had nothing to drink that night. But on the report, Wyrick quoted her saying, "I sipped a glass of wine, but didn't drink."

The Highway Patrol says protocol for when a driver has been pulled over on reasonable suspicion includes the officer looking for certain characteristics, including odor, eyes and slurred speech. According to the report, Gina Tessener had moderate odor of an alcoholic beverage and was slightly unsteady on her feet.

A Highway Patrol spokesman also tells WWAY that a driver can be arrested based on an officer's opinion, even if their blood alcohol level is under the legal limit.

So far we've found several discrepancies between the Tessners' story and the DWI report and video of the interaction with them and Wyrick at the Wrightsville Beach Police Department after Gina Tessener's arrest.

In the meantime, Wyrick and Tpr. Andrew Smith are on administrative duty during an internal affairs investigation.

We've also learned Gina's husband Hoyt has legal problems of his own. He's due in court next week in Raleigh on an assault charge for allegedly punching another man in the face in the middle of the night back in December.

We tried to reach Hoyt Tessener today for comment, but he has not called us back.

Disclaimer: Comments posted on this, or any story are opinions of those people posting them, and not the views or opinions of WWAY NewsChannel 3, its management or employees. You can view our comment policy here.


dui in heels

For starters, there is no DUI in NC. You are either Driving While Impaired or your not. Mrs. Tessener refused to co-operate with Trp Wyrick as soon as he began asking if she had been drinking. She refused to give a breath sample, which you agree, warranted her arrest. Once she registered two brath test of .00 at the police dept, she was transported to the Magistrates office, where he, and only he, was athorized to release her. As far as the husband goes, he fell behind the other two on the way to the Magistrates office and was speeding to catch up. I'm sure you know what Troopers do when they clock speeders. In reference to professionalism, the second Trooper let the husband go with just a verbal warning, considering what he was having to deal with. I'm talking about his wife embarassing him here. These two Troopers are very polite and professional, the only "bad seed" here is the attorney.

Spoken like a true cop.

Spoken like a true cop.

Because once you are

Because once you are arrested, even if there is no probable cause for the arrest, you have to go before a magistrate. The magistrate is a probable cause judge. You cant just be "released". The magistrate finds PC or No PC..... In this case he found No PC.
The beaches have on call magistrates. This night, the magistrate could have been at Carolina beach, or even sick. Whatever the case "downtown" or Blue Clay....Really? The old Magistrate used to be downtown, and during court hours "downtown" at the courthouse, there is a magstrate....

Let me help you add...

A LEO does not have the power to un-arrest someone, they must be taken before a magistrate to be released. How do you know the trooper acted unprofessional after the test??? What conduct are you reffering to? I think some of those apples and oranges hit you in the head.

Irrelevant misdirection

The parking lot was not gravel? Hoyt Tessener has been accused of simple assault (not convicted)in another case? The trooper says that she said she had a sip of wine?

That's a nice misdirection there, but what does any of that have to do with what was truly objectionable about the conduct of these troopers? Objectively true facts are: (1)- She blew a .00, meaning no alcohol to smell, certainly not a "moderate" odor. (2)- The trooper continued to detain her long after it was clear he had no probable cause to believe she was impaired. (3)- Hoyt Tessener was pulled over by another trooper as he tried to follow Wyrick and his wife, for no apparent legitimate reason.

NO-- What was truly objectionable

... was the trooper driving by a flashy blond in a hot looking car(I know she's fifty, but she looks forty and in a quick drive by, may have looked thirty to Wyrick)and deciding to stop her and have some fun with her. The initial stop was for a FALSE allegation that a headlight was out. She caught on immediately to his game and he had to try to come up with some legitimate basis to justify having hassled her. Everybody talks about the alcohol questions and completely glosses over the fact that alcohol was just the smoke-screen the Trooper seized on to divert attention from his original illegal stop.

its all relevant

Let me help you understand these things. 1: she had an odor of alcohol, admitted to sipping a glass of wine, and was at a party, gala, ball, whatever you want to call it, that had alcohol being consumed. I'm sure her conduct and things she said also led to the suspicion of impairment. 2: She was not detained any further than anyone else is detained. Unless you feel the rich should be processed expedentially faster that all others. 3: Ol' Hoyt was stopped for speeding. He should have been given a ticket, but wasn't.

Thanks for the help,

but I'm not the fool you take me for. (1) She was not stopped for alcohol. She was stopped for a headlight that WAS NOT out! If it had been, can't we all agree he would have ticketed her for it? (Warning at least) This was an illegal stop from the git-go. (2) Knowing he had made up the headlight issue, how can we doubt he would have made up odor, unsteadiness and anything else he wanted to if she had submitted to a field test with no one present but him? (3) Likewise, the cruiser's alcolyzer does not produce a printout like the breathalyzer at the station, so he could have written any number he wanted to down on that. It would not have been admissible, but he was no longer trying to get a conviction by this point, he was just trying to manufacture some reasonable suspicion to cover his tail. (4) He initially wrote "Nothing" in the space for her statements prior to arrest, and clearly came back LATER and ADDED "I had a sip around 6:30 but did not drink." The stop was at 10:15. (5) "Ol' Hoyt" was following Wyrick and if he was going any faster than Wyrick he would have rear ended him. Why then didn't Wyrick get pulled for speeding and get a ticket? (6) Why was Wyrick so careful to say that he never made contact with Smith "WHILE EN ROUTE to the jail until after I verified he stopped her husband?" Is it because the contact he had with Smith was BEFORE they left the station when both Tesseners saw him texting on his phone? (7) With the things Troopers have been proved to have engaged in over the last couple of years, and under all the circumstances of this situation, the very first thing I would have asked my wife would have been "Did he touch you?" and, if she said "no," my second second question would have been "Did he proposition you?"

I don't know ol' Hoyt, but he showed remarkable restraint. I would have probably said something that ticked the Trooper off enough that he'd beat the stuffing out of me and then charge ME with assaulting an officer. It happens all the time. The SHP always agrees to drop the criminal charges and transfer the Trooper if the victim of the beating will agree not to bring a civil suit. Hoyt was smart to keep his cool.

Not only should Wyrick "be ashamed" (something he apparently is not capable of), but the entire SHP should be ashamed as well.

response to irrelevant misdirection

hopefully this will clear up a few misconconceptions.I have been in law enforcement for over 25 years and made more than 1,100 Dwi arrest.The human nose can detect the smell of alcohol below the 0.00 level. I have many times stopped persons with the odor of alcohol who belew on the alcoh-sensor and tested 0.00. 95% of the people admitt to having consumed (or sipped) some type of alcoholic drink.On the other hand I have had people with a slight to moderate odor blow much higher.There are a lot of factors involved.A small amount of wine is much easier to detect than vodka.Belive it or not the sex age and race are huge factors also. I can detect the smell on a young white male easier than on an elderley black male.In addition cologne and perfume can amplify the smell.The breathalyzer will only detect 0.01 readings and above.someone could have a reading of 0.0099 and it is program to round down to 0.00. a blood test would read 0.0099.Also once someone is arrested they simply can nor be unarrested.they have to be taken before a judcial official prior to release.

Help me out Ricky:

What made this stop legal? Even if the DWI was dropped, why isn't there a ticket or at least a warning ticket for "improper equipment; to wit, failure to display two headlights clearly visible at night from a distance of 350 feet GS 14-something" or some such? And please don't tell me it was just because Wyrick is such a nice guy.

I am also assuming that you

I am also assuming that you have been through trooper school, and having been through such; you, yourself, are a trooper. Therefore you know what the SOP is. I am so glad that we have professionals like you.

like i said

Hoyt states in his letter a gravel parking lot. It was not the case. Just another excuse not to do sobriety test. Obviously he does not like law enforcement because he too has been charged. It is very possible to blow 0 after consumption of alcohol if you wait long enough and still smell of alcohol. Trouble smith will be cleared as well because speeding is a violation on NC law. As stated in his letter he was seperated by a stop light. Well he gassed it in a 45 zone trying to catch up and got busted. End of story. I do not understand why although not as many a previously, try to defend the hot head ambulance chaser and his wife who also feels she is above the law. Only thing I figure is you have been locked up yourself

hey liberty bell

I told you so!!""
I guess sipping is drinking
What's wrong hottest. Not so quick to respond this time huh?
Gravel parking lot?? Must have thought they were in rocky point!

Troopers Not Patrolling?

She refused the field tests when the Trooper stopper her. If you refuse field sobriety tests, and the trooper has probable cause (she admitted drinking before driving!!) you are arrested for DUI.

Hoyt Tessener accuses the Trooper of misconduct and treating his wife badly. The video in Wrightsville Beach Police Dept shows exactly the contrary and that Hoyt Tessener was aggressive and hostile.

It is clear the Troopers acted with their professional duties.

Bottom line... because our Troopers are under such scrutiny for other officers' past, bad behaviors we now have two good Highway Patrolmen sitting behind desks on a one of the highest DUI holiday weekends of the year!

Governor Purdue and the Highway Patrol's upper leadership should be ashamed.

So tell me again, why was she pulled. And her hubby was "hostile

Okay, she's driving home; she's obviously NOT impaired; she's;pulled because.........

PLEASE answer this question. I've heard about DWB (driving while black), and as a non-black person, I've believed that DWB's happend, but never raised heck about them.

imo This was a DWB- a driving while blonde. He just had to pull her over because she was attractive.

A driver has NO OBLIGATION to blow into roadside Breathalyser, and lucky for her she didn't. Do you really think Wyrick woud've said she blown a 0, if there was no record of it.

Then she doesn't "bow to him" and "has then nerve" to blow 0.00 TWICE, so he "shows her" by setting her hubby up and having him pulled FOR NO GOOD REASON. To me, that is the part that really bothers me. You're a Highway Patrolman; your just-pulled "perp" blows 0.00 twice, and her hubby was not licking your boots. Okay... bad night at work...

....but you do NOT set that unhappy hubby up to be pulled, unless you're abusing the power that was vested in you by the taxpayers. Just because you've got a gun and a badge, you have NO RIGHT to set up somebody just because you don't like them.

And by the way, I'm a successful non-minority person, and it makes me wonder what our HP might do to people with less power when they are pulled over. How many times is the "probable cause" really driving while black, or brown or poor ?

,,, or blonde.


First answer= She was pulled because she had a headlight out! Did you not read all the information before you posted your comment???
Secondly, if ANY LEO suspects an impairment, they have to do a field sobriety test and or breathalyzer test. If you refuse, like she did, they have to arrest you. Just because someone doesnt want to blow roadside, doesnt mean they can just get back in their car and drive away...
Next, they make EVERYONE blow twice.
Last, her husband was pulled because he was SPEEDING, which, last time I checked, is illegal...

The Shame Belongs To The Tesseners

Tony I think the Tesseners should be ashamed. Their story fell apart after the video was compared to their accusations. Mr. Tessener lost all credability once the facts came out. At least for me he did. Unfortunately he and Mrs. Tessener decided to go public with their accusations so I don't think the HP leadership had any choice but to conduct a full blown investigation. Hopefully, this matter will soon be put to rest and these Troopers can get back to their jobs.

So he says

He says she admitted to drinking/sipping wine in his report. Because he wrote it doesnt mean its true and nobody seems to have a valid reason why the husband was pulled over by the 2nd trooper. This to me is even more a blatant case of law enforcement harassment if you ask me. Granted the easiest answer is Trooper 1 called Trooper 2 on his cell phone and told him to watch for the husband (he had the license plate number and vehicle description) so wouldnt been hard to pull it off because he woulda been stupid to call over the radio to him. Also why was he pulled over and did the 2nd trooper even call in the stop as proper procedure which to me woulda/shoulda raised a red flag the same vehicle being pulled over in short order in the SHP dispatch center.

Same Vehicle?

Why would you assume that the trooper would know the husband's vehicle description and plate number? The husband wasn't with the wife at the time of the stop. What'd he do, walk from home to where his wife's car was and then drive to the beach? That's just asinine. The husband has already proven he's a liar. Proven, as in there is video/audio proof of it. Now you're just fishing for anything you can in order to serve a very obvious bias you have.

same vehicle

Here's another scenario for you Columbo, they were staying in Wrightsville Beach at a friends house and they have taxis or a friend gave him a ride to the car and most people have keys to each others cars when they are married. Does this clear it up for you Einstien??