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


Tags: , , , , , ,

Submitted: Sat, 07/02/2011 - 2:53am
Updated: Sun, 07/03/2011 - 11:03am By:

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.

50 Comments

  • theo says:

    The NC State Highway Patrol is out of control right now and is prinarily operating with very heavy badges. They have a sense of security knowing they won’t be reigned in for bad behavior due to intimidation of the public.

    The numerous scandals, and the numerous complaints of mistreatment of citizens is starting to stack up. That department needs to be reigned in and understand their role in life – writing tickets to speeders and writing up accident reports.

    It sounds like this trooper had a personal issue with one or both of these people and used the weight of his badge to carry out his vendetta.

    She was unsteady on her feet in heels on gravel and blew a .00? What an ***hole trooper. I think it’s time we started causing the trooper some problems. We need to weed out these badge-heavy ***holes out of the force. The Governor is hiding under her desk and the people need to fight back. Stop being a scared little populace and fight against these Nazis.

    Just my two-cents…

  • Head on Wall says:

    You’re still not getting this. She was arrested prior to her blow .00s, therefore she CANNOT, LEGALLY, be released straight from WBPD. She has to go before a judicial official, who then sets the conditions of release. The trooper followed proper protocol and THE LAW.

  • Big Boy says:

    “Just because the trooper put it writing does not make it a fact.”

    Remember that. It’s true. Every time a cop’s story differs from the videotape (if available), it means that the cop IS LYING.

    This is SOP for any cop beyond his probationary period.

  • incredulous says:

    Report says “Driver’s side headlight was not illuminating.” Unlikely she forgot to turn on her driver’s side headlight but remembered to turn on the passenger side one. Wyrick charged her for drinking when she had a 0.00; don’t you think he would have charged her for the headlight if it had really been out? Or was he just being a nice guy?

    Report says “sipped . . . wine . . . at 6:30.” There is no way he smelled that sip 4 hours and 15 minutes later when he pulled her.

    He did NOT have to arrest her. NC Gen Stat 20-16.2(i) gave the trooper a choice. He could have tested her before arresting or charging her and then released her when she blew 0.00. If she did not know that was her right, he certainly did, and he could have told her, but that was not what he wanted. He wanted to “HAVE” to take her to the Mag’s office to be released.

    Report says no prior contact with Smith en route to jail, but text records show contact before he ever left WBPD. Who’s the liar there?

    90-some per cent of you guys are professional, conscientious and courteous while doing a tough and thankless job. You hurt your reputation though when you jump to the defense of the bad apples in your midst.

  • Guest99 says:

    Idiot. I don’t need Hitler Youth wannabes to do anything. I have always done what I had to do and don’t need a moron like you telling me what I need.

    Here’s what I’d like to see: I claim that this trooper is a latent sex offender. I speculate that he was aroused while he had this attractive woman imprisoned.

    There are simple psychological tests that could be administered to eliminate this as a factor… Let’s make this trooper submit to this evaluation.

  • Guest33 says:

    I agree that it sounds like the procedure followed once she was arrested was correct, although I have never been sure when she was actually arrested. But this mess started long BEFORE alcohol was an issue, when Wyrick passed a flashy blonde and decided to stop her and get a better look. (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 alco-sensor 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 of wine around 6:30 but did not drink.” The stop was at 10:15. So what if she drank a whole glass of wine FOUR HOURS AGO? (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? (Rhetorical question. We all see Troopers whizzing past us on the highway with no apparent need and we know speed limits do not apply to them.)(6) Why was Wyrick so careful to say that he never made contact with Smith “WHILE EN ROUTE to the jail?” 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.

  • raleigh nc guy says:

    i agree the headlight was a scam, however one thing i keep seeing and hearing is “she said she had a sip of wine at gala”

    her statement in the beginning and continous throughout, “Wyrick asks Gina where she has been. Gina explains that she is returning from a formal Gala for the new President of NCAJ. Wyrick then tells Gina that he smells alcohol on her breath. In response, Gina tells Wyrick that she has not been drinking. Wyrick then asks Gina if she had been around people who were drinking. Gina tells Wyrick there was table wine on the table for anyone to drink along with their meals. Wyrick then orders Gina to exit the car.

    Wyrick again says he smells alcohol. Gina attempts to explain to Wyrick that she had not been drinking any alcohol, is not in any way impaired and that she was with a lot of people who would gladly tell him, if he wants to call. Wyrick laughs at her and says he is not making any calls.”

    it is possible that a person can go to an event and not have anything to drink, so why prosecute her because the officer wrote this in his notes later that evening, is it possible he was tired and couldnt remember what was said and wrote it incorrectly?

  • SHP from the East says:

    SInce you were there…you saw both headlights working. Could she forgtten to turn on her lights?….2007 Lexus have day time running lights …. I was not there either. She admitted that she had sipped wine. That would be the presence of alcohol. She refused the alco-sensor test. She gave the trooper no choice but to arrest her. He followed policy and went to the Intox Room. After the result he is required to take her to the mags office. HE did that too. As far as Hoyt restraining himself…he has a pendong assault charge in that county already….

    Hoyt was given directions to the Mags office and asked to follow the trooper. He chose to stand in the parking lot on the phone. The trooper doesnt have to wait for him…realizing that the trooper left…Hoyt speeds down the road and get stopped. Since the all text messages, computer messages, and phone records for trooper are subject to be reviewed at any tiem by a supervisior …(there was no prior contact between troopers)….no set up ….

    She had an indiffernet attitude. In both videos …the trooper was polite, professional. She was not. However, she doeent have to be…no one can hold her accoutable for her actions…..no one will discipline her later.

    Its funny how the public likes to make accusations about the Troopers when something like this happens,…instead of getting both sides first. Since the lawyer’s statement in the second interview and her WRAL interview contradicts their original statements…..cause when you lie…its hard to keep them straight.

    As far as the speeding up and down the hwys with no reason…There would be more collisions if we turned our lights on trying to get to collisions up the road. Because when you see blue lights behind you…you dont automatically move over…you say to yourself ” What did I do?” I was not speeding.. (your still in the way at the point)

    We live in a fish bowel. Personnal and professional…99% percent of us dont mind. For those who make bad decisons///…we fire them

  • SHP from the East says:

    If you actually know this trooper, you would have a different opinion. He has not had any other complaints in his career. He’s level headed and easy going. Since we can’t respond like a normal perosn when treated bad…we get a thick skin very quickly. This couple thinks that they have power. The really dont. The trooper treated them with a professional attitude….look at the videos.

    All the trouble that the Patrol has had have been dealt with….they got fired. But your talking about a news outlets showing a 15 year period. It averaged out to be like 1 a year getting into news media trouble. They were ALL fired. With near 2000 employees (uniform and civilian) that comes out to about 1% or so…

  • SHP from the East says:

    This trooper has arrested 54 impaired drivers since Jan 1. Only two were below the legal limit. One was .07 and the other was .06. He doesnt make it a habit of taking “low blows” into the Intox rm. Its She was taken for processing because she refused the alco-sensor test on the road. You dont have to cover up the truth. Its easy. The couple has already been caught in lies. They cant keep their stories straight,. The trooper’s version hasnt changed.

  • Guest33 says:

    I have no doubt that Wyrick WOULD have beaten the s#!t out of Tessener if he could have ever gotten him alone and out of camera range on a dark road between Wrightsville Beach and Castle Hayne. Like maybe that was why he was so upset when Smith said “I let him go.”

  • Guest33 says:

    The stop was not at 10:15 it was at 10:45. So a sip of wine four hours and a quarter ago still smelled so strongly on her breath that he referred to it “blowing on him” at the roadside stop? That was more than crude.

  • Guestff says:

    It never seems to amaze me how quick people are to make up stuff to cover a Trooper. The paperwork shows “Blood/Breath Results: 0.00/0.00″ in the top left corner. How could he have filled that out before the test was run?

  • Guest1712 says:

    Just because the trooper put it writing does not make it a fact. Could it be that he was just covering his butt after she blew .00?

    It is apparent that you certainly did not watch the video in detail. The paperwork the trooper filled out was BEFORE the test was ran. It never seems to amaze me how quick people are to judge without hearing both sides of the story.

    In the end, the Tesserner’s will be paying $$$$.

  • Brian says:

    I’ve read the 8 page complaint the first page of which Hoyt lets the Governor know who he is, what he does, and who he knows. It stunk of hey look at me, look what I’ve done. What surprised me is that he wasn’t even there when all of this took place and yet he is doing all of the talking. Next we see this video and he comes in screaming did he touch you? Please talk about looking for trouble.

    I surely hope the media stays on this guy if it is revealed that he has exaggerated these claims. I’ve read reports where he is supposedly a law professor at Campbell University. He is an officer of the court and he should be held to the same ethical standard that the officers are, and further it blows my mind that he thought his wife who blew below the legal limit could just be un-arrested. Legal 101 should have told him that requires a judicial official for release procedures.

    If this investigation shows the troopers were right then I believe that they should sue this couple for what is surely seen as defamation of their character.

  • Piersitter says:

    “When the officer testifies that he/she smelled the odor of an alcoholic beverage on the suspect’s breath, he/she is saying that he/she was smelling the aldehydes and ketones that are by-products as the alcohol breaks down in a person’s body” If there is no alcohol in the body (o.oo on the intoximeter) there are no aldehydes and ketones to SMELL

  • Guest2008957 says:

    I don’t know who is right or wrong in this case, but do know that law enforcement in all departments like to show their weight. Speaking from personally experience. I really don’t have much trust in the law enforcement or the court systems these days.

  • Guest9999 says:

    Here is Hoyt Tessener’s link according to NC Courts:

    Citation Query by Defendant Name

    Officer Name Agency Officer
    Number Court
    Date County Session Court
    Room Defendant Citation
    Number
    LITTLEFIELD,C,C CPD 3242 07/07/2011 WAKE PM 002C TESSENER,HOYT,GOLD 17269E

    Tessener made some bold face lies with his 8 page letter that you(WWAY) ate up with a spoon like it was ice cream. You’re broadcasting of these events made you look like a high news show. Thats the one thing I’ve started to see with the news station: Who ever tells the tale first you correct no matter what BS they say. Tessener played your news station like a fiddle. Never once did Ramon ask if Tessener had had any dealings with Law Enforcement before. Looks like he has according NC Courts. Hell, he has a court date for assault. Maybe he was seeking revenge against any and all Law Enforcement for being ticketed for punching some guy in the face in December. Finally, this news station is crap. You went to the Trooper’s house before any guilt has been proven. Then you reported the Trooper had a wife, who answered the door. Which he doesn’t. Where in the hell does yor News Station recieve and confirm its alleged stories. WWAY, you’re station should be ashamed of its self for allowing this worthless SACK so much time in the Limelight. WWAY, The other thing you should do is make on television appology to the Trooper for you’re siding with the Tressener. Frankly, If I was the Trooper, I’d sue the piss out of your news station for slander.

  • Guest 1006 says:

    Just because the trooper put it writing does not make it a fact. Could it be that he was just covering his butt after she blew .00?
    No one will ever know, but the bottom line is she never should have been charged.
    With the hot lights on the NCSHP and Bev Perdue you can be sure the trooper is going to come up short.

  • Guest 1006 says:

    I guess we’ll just have to wait and see who pays. I would strongly recommend that you don’t bet the farm on Tesserner paying anything. She still blew a .00 and should have been released at WBPD.

  • Guest1234 says:

    Whatever? Isn’t it possible to smell alcohol or in lamen terms “alcoholic beverage” several hours after the fact? AND he arrested her an hour before she tested…so it’s very possible she had alcohol in her system at the time of stop and when tested. The instrument she was tested on only displays 2 digits, so it is possible she could have been .009. With regard to the arrest, she felt he would have manipulated the pre-arrest test and refused…BOLOGNA! The pre-arrrest test as far as what she blows is not permissible in court, she was scared because she had been drinking (although not much). It just doesn’t add up, the only thing that would have led to no arrest would have been to blow at the scene and to do sobriety test. She and her husband (or crimnal assailant according to records) are just so arrogant to believe that they are untouchable….well maybe not the husband? Did he touch you….wow….really!

  • Guest.45 says:

    These guys know each others cars, thats how he knew who pulled “good ol” Hoyt. Also, they fill out the reports that nite/shift.

  • Martin says:

    On the report the officer describes, in detail, the car went into a parking lot, but twice in the report he refers to the fact that the encounter occurred on the “roadside”, which is what Mrs. Tessener stated.

    Then you have the officer’s explanation of when he contacted the other officer “only after” he stopped Mr. Tessener. Really? And exactly how did he know that the other officer had stopped Mr. Tessener. And why would he even mention that on his report of the arrest of Mrs. Tessener?

    Last, when was this report filled out and with all of the detail he is providing, why no explanation of who he was texting and why?

  • Guest.45 says:

    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…

  • Guest45 says:

    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.

  • Guest33 says:

    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.

  • sailboat233 says:

    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??

  • confusing info says:

    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.

  • Tony Cowden says:

    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.

  • Devils Advocate 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.

  • Guesttoday says:

    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.

  • ziggy says:

    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.

  • Guestdisisbs says:

    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!

  • wilmcitizen1994 says:

    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.

  • Guestdisisbs says:

    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

  • Chris292 says:

    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.

  • ricky says:

    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.

  • unappreciated says:

    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.

  • Guest70 says:

    … 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.

  • Guest1966 says:

    A lot of things are not adding up! If you refuse a field test, you WILL BE ARESSTED! What I don’t understand is after she blew .00 twice, why wasn’t she released? and why was her husband pulled over, while following them to a magistrates office? Why was the officer so mad after the results, that he couldn’t act professional? I’m starting to think maybe, just maybe it was apples and oranges, and half a dozen of the other, for both parties, but that does not excuse the officers conduct, there are too many bad seeds out there, and it sounds like he’s one of them!

  • Grand Ole Party says:

    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.

  • Carlos the jackle says:

    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….

  • umappreciated says:

    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.

  • Britt says:

    if you are arrested you cannot be Un-arrested. you have to be taken before a magistrate for the release document. He was taking her there where no probable cause would have been found and then she would then be released.

  • Guest7969 says:

    CORRECT answer…”I am NOT refusing the breathalyzer test, nor am I refusing a field sobriety test. I do, however, want my lawyer present to do those things. He is on his/her way…”

  • John says:

    I have worked several times with the NCSHP on many accident scenes. Each and every Trooper I have worked with has been upstanding, polite, and even joking. Trooper Wyrick is one them. Even when someone is in the wrong, or violates the law, he was never unprofessional.

  • NCemergencyservant says:

    It seems every couple of hours this couples story gets another large hole in it. The video shows that the only hot head in the room was the husband. He was angry and childish from the time he entered the room. In the state of NC if you refuse a field BAL test you are arrested and taken to a police station or hospital to have a breath or blood test done. Once the test was done the trooper by law could not release her because he didnt have the authority to do so only the magistrate could. Seems to me this couple is just trying to get a lawsuit against the state of NC to try and make a buck. Problem is their lies dont add up.

  • Guest28541 says:

    Did anybody really expect the trooper to claim otherwise in his report. The trooper had to come up with something to justify his arresting her after claiming she smelled of alchol and if she blew .00 obviously she wasnt drinking (this isnt in dispute at all). Likely she had not been drinking nor even sipping on wine as the trooper wrote in his report (gee isnt it possible he falsified his report to justify his actions hmm yes it is possible not saying he did but logic says he had to write something in his report to justify what went on). Im not saying hes lying and IM not saying she didnt lie in her comments later on but sadly usually the simplest answer is the most likely one in this case.

  • i know why says:

    A person has to give two breath tests. If the results are below the legal limit the officer can’t just let them walk out the door. Law requires the arrested to be taken before a judicial official (magistrate)so that the charges can be disposed of. Claiming the trooper is a bad apple because he didn’t just let her walk out the door is just pure lack of understanding of the law. If she had of complied with the roadside sobriety test it may have cleared the whole matter up. Blame her not the trooper. He was doing his job, getting drunk drivers off the roads so they don’t kill anyone. Whole thing in a nutshell… if she had of cooperated it would of never have gone as far as it did. If she was as smart as she thought she was or her hubby was half of the attorney he claims to be she would have requested a prearrest breath test. They are trying to use political clout and pressure to get what they want when in the end it was them that acted as the unprofessional ones from what I’ve seen. Wanting something for nothing. And these days there are plenty of other things out there that can make you appear intoxicated than just alcohol. Think about that.

  • Sophie Maele says:

    Spoken like a true cop.

Leave a Reply