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

ONLY ON 3: Witness talks about Tesseners & trooper, plus profane texts between troopers

READ MORE: ONLY ON 3: Witness talks about Tesseners & trooper, plus profane texts between troopers

WILMINGTON, NC (WWAY) -- Once again there are new developments in the story WWAY broke last week involving a Raleigh couple and two Highway Patrol troopers from New Hanover County.

We have obtained text messages the troopers sent to each another and an exclusive interview with a man who was inside the Wrightsville Beach Police Department when it all went down.

Matthew Ragone admits he blew twice the legal limit for blood alcohol two weeks ago at the Wrightsville Beach Police Department. But Ragone says he clearly remembers that night and remembers the interaction between Gina and Hoyt Tessener and the trooper who thought Gina was under the influence.

"I remember pretty much everything from that night," Ragone said in an exclusive interview with WWAY NewsChannel 3. "It's definitly etched in my mind."

Ragone witnessed first-hand the interaction between the Tesseners and Tpr. Edward Wyrick Jr. on the night Wyrick accused Gina of drinking and driving.

Ragone is seen in the Wrightsville Beach Police Department video watching the incident play out in front of him in the police station's holding area.

"Everything seemed, you know, fairly calm and what not, but as soon as the husband showed up, things got a little heated," Ragone said.

Ragone says it was Hoyt Tessener's actions inside the holding area that got him to really focus on the Tesseners and Tpr. Wyrick.

"He showed up, and the officer had actually greeted him outside and then came in and had mentioned that he wasn't very happy," Ragone said. "At that point they allowed (Hoyt Tessener) into the holding area, and he just went pretty ballistic. She actually stayed pretty calm the entire time, but he definitely got loud and was pretty upset by the whole thing, which I guess was understandable, but it got pretty crazy."

Ragone gives Wyrick credit, saying the trooper stayed calm the entire time. Ragone also says he didn't notice the trooper trying to intimidate the Tesseners like they claim.

"The officer himself kept his cool pretty well, asked the man multiple times to please calm down, that they were just waiting on the magistrate. That he couldn't personally release her," Ragone said.

Besides the intimidation claims, the Tesseners also claimed Wyrick set Hoyt up by texting Tpr. Andrew Smith, who later pulled Hoyt over while Hoyt followed his wife and Wyrick, who were headed for the New Hanover County Jail.

Text messages released Tuesday by the Highway Patrol show that the troopers sent a total of four messages.

Wyrick texted, "This woman refused all roadside testing, and blew .00. Her husband is a trial lawyer and told me I should be ashamed of myself."

Tpr. Smith texted back: "hahahaha f*** her and f*** him. She say how much she'd had to drink?"

Wyrick texts, "She said 1 drink at 7pm."

Smith then replys: "f*** her"

The Highway Patrol also released Tuesday mobile data messages from the two troopers. Three messages were sent after Tpr. Smith pulled over Hoyt Tessener for speeding.

"Tell him if he wants to cop an attitude to feel free and come back and ill stroke him that speed," Smith wrote.

Wyrick replied, "How fast," and Smith answered back, "58," refering to 58 miles per hour in a 45 miles per hour zone.

The Highway Patrol says the internal investigation continues into Wyrick and Smith. Both men are on administrative duty for the time being. The Highway Patrol expects to wrap up the investigation soon.

We called Hoyt Tessener today for comment about the latest information we've uncovered, but have not heard back from him.

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.


cops enjoy doing field tests on blond women late night

Blond females driving alone at night have been a regular target of cops who want to "**** her" just like the text msg. says & its about time someone brought this to the media. So very many times me or my friends have been pulled over on side streets for over an hour late night being requested to perform extended field sobriety tests, its absurd.

We're taking his story

So here's the guy that blew twice the legal limit, and he can clearly remember everything that went on. Let assume that he was the only other person in the office and they need someone out of uniform to confirm their story. I bet he gets a nice deal from the DA on that DUI charge for his nice comments towards the officers.!!!


Gimme a break folks; we're talking about cops not priests. What cops say to each other in private is just that - private. Unless it goes to prove illegal activity which is not the case here. The guy needed to vent to his side partner wich is a coping mechanism. Whold you have prefered he vented to the attorney or his wife? No, that WOULD be unprofessional.

Cops deal with d-bags all the time. It appears this was no exception.

I'll be interested to hear the lawyer's press rant tomorrow after he's the defendant. He'll probably be a no show as he has been for the last week. Bueller...Bueller...Bueller?


Why does it have to be one "side" or the other that is in the wrong? Sounds to me like there is plenty of bad behavior to go around.

It sounds to me like there were plenty of points where the situation could have been easily diffused by cooler heads but those paths were ignored. What a shame.


Well, go ahead and congratulate this slime in our society called "Troopers." Yes, and let's applaud them for doing such a great job of arresting one for DWI who blew 0.00. 0.00? I guess for those of you who cannot interpret, we should say this woman was not intoxicated.

Here's sending the best I have to all you good, honest troopers. Please accept my "middle finger of friendship" as a reward for your typical imbecility.


I applaud the troopers for doing their job. Just because you are an attorney does not give you nor your wife any special priviledges. Society is what is wrong with the North Carolina Highway Patrol. Everyone crying wolf when they get a citation. If you don't want a citation then obey the rules of our highways or you can sit at home.

She blew a 0!!! You want to

She blew a 0!!! You want to applaud a trooper for arresting someone for DUI that blew a 0.0? I don't think it's a "special privilege" to want to NOT be ARRESTED for DUI when you blow a 0.0.

He didn't want special treatment, he wanted justice

He wasn't asking for special privileges; he wanted justice. His wife was being detained FOR NO REASON even after her innocence had been proven. Can I detain your wife or daughter for several hours for no reason? Would you like that?

it's an "implied consent" offense

He smelled alcohol in the vehicle. She admitted to drinking earlier in the night. She refused to perform any Field Sobriety Tests at the scene. When you get your driver's license in NC, it's a privilege not a right. DWI is an "implied consent" offense. That means by opting to get your driver's license, you automatically give consent to be subject to an alcohol breath test, if you are suspected of drinking & driving. She would have avoided a lot of grief if she would have submitted to the testing at the scene. Sure she was wearing high heels, but it's very easy to perform those tests barefoot on an asphalt parking lot.

The LEO did NOT have to

The LEO did NOT have to arrest her. Just as the law states, she could have been taken to the station and given the test there, AND NOT BEEN ARRESTED UNLESS SHE BLEW ABOVE THE LEGAL LIMIT! The fact that the LEO arrested her is proof of his bad attitude/intentions.

I understand LEOs have to deal with lots of jerks through the day, and lots of them are guilty, but that does not give them the right to abuse the general public. I am fed up with the way things are, and it has just been getting worse and worse. It's sickening. NC is most definitely a Police state.

License checks, seatbelt

License checks, seatbelt checks, and on the water "safety checks", these all are done for the publics safety in mind. Just like every cop you see in a car if feverishly typing in EVERY tag into his computer looking for ANYthing he can stop and ticket you for, Regardless of not having done anything to give them the probable cause needed to begin the harassment process. Isolated incident? I dont think so. These guys just harrassed an attorney. How many poor "regular" people did these guys get away with it do you htink are out there?


...granted. The trooper had a perfectly good reason to take her down to the station and make her take a breathalyzer. He even had a good reason to make her take it twice.

But after that? Keeping her in a drunk tank for blowing a 0.0? Taking her before a Magistrate for blowing a 0.0? Letting his friend, another Trooper to whom he complained pull over her husband, whom he knew to be following his police vehicle to the Magistrate...for blowing a 0.0?

This isn't about good behavior, respect, or even right and wrong. When we give people badges and guns, we expect them to be the bigger men. These Troopers failed us big time.


But he DID NOT HAVE TO ARREST HER!!! In doing so he was simply being an @ss. Plain and simple.

Hoyt had a right to be

Hoyt had a right to be upset. The LEO had NO reason to arrest his wife (read the law), and all you people who think he was out of line, think of it this way: If they arrested your wife for no reason and you knew it, and then while in-route to the police office to see your wife they pulled you over and delayed you, would you not be highly irate?

I have an attractive wife, and she WILL NOT pull over for ANY LEO unless it's in a fully public, well lighted area with people around who could be witnesses. There is way too much risk that she would be pulled over by a cop that is not trustworthy. 1 in 100 is too much risk. If you don't think so, think how you would feel if a cop assaulted your wife. This is what Hoyt's wife was obviously afraid of and why she refused to take tests with the cop.

Think that's stupid? It isn't. My wife's sister ran away from home at 14 and was then abused and held captive by the cop she went to for help after being away for a while. The cop was never brought to justice. I also know several people who had a considerable amounts of cash on hand and in their vehicles (thousands) simply because they like to carry cash. They were pulled over and the cops illegally searched them and stole the money. No charges made and they were let go. There's No proof but the person's word so there's no justice.

You public need to know your rights and enforce them. Cops try to appeal to you by saying things like they will help you out if you tell them the truth, etc. It's lies. Everything a cop does and asks you is an attempt to get you to incriminate yourself. DO NOT TALK TO THEM, even at simple traffic stops. Answer EVERY question with a simple SHRUG OF YOUR SHOULDERS. Of course you have to give them your license and registration, but that's it... If they ask you to exit the car, get out and Lock your car and DO NOT LET THEM SEARCH YOU OR YOUR CAR. They have NO right to do so without a warrant, and you should immediately ask if you are being detained, and if so, what for? Then ask if you are under arrest and if not ask if you are you free to go. If you don't ask these questions, you are staying under your own volition!

Video tape every event with any cop using your phone too, but be discreet, the cops hate being video taped and they will try to claim it's against the law, which is a vile twist of an old law.

Most people think that standing up for your rights will cause the cops to hassle you and detain you, but actually it's the other way around. If you know your rights, and use them, you can often avoid being detained for long lengths of time. Learn your rights and use them! Search youtube for "traffic stop rights" to learn more.

Get a clue

When you refuse all roadside tests and smell of alcohol you get arrested. In one story she says she didn't drink, then she says she sipped but didn't drink. Maybe she friends of Bill Clinton. You know he puffed but didn't enhale! Moron

Good grief, Oh yes I see

Good grief, Oh yes I see them now harassing this woman because she is just so attractive, not. She was pulled over for having a headlight out, asked if she had been drinking after the officer smelled the presence of alcohol, she admitted to having a glass of wine and when the offier ask her to submit to a field sobriety test, she refused. So on that not she was taken to jail for dui, which while at jail, watch the videos, she was treated with respect, then the big bad husband comes in with an attitude, once she blew a 0.00 she was taken to be released. point of story is this officer did nothing wrong he followed protocol. So get off your high horse.

The headlight wasn't out...

The headlight wasn't out... It was harassment.

Oh thats right it wasnt out

Oh thats right it wasnt out because they said it wasnt right?? It could easily have a short so next time the car was on the light was on. If you watch the videos and read her statement about what happend it didnt quite match up so kinda leaning more towards hey she may be a liar. Just saying.

If it didn't quite match up

If it didn't quite match up that's cause she's human. Most likely she remembered something new and adjusted the statement in accordance. Trying to remember things ain't exactly easy; everyone knows how unreliable eyewitnesses are and it just goes to show how difficult it is to remember things, especially in a stressful situation.

The Super F-ing Troopers and The Senator

First of all Thom Goolsby needs to back his nose out of this fight. He is a defense attorney and He should not try to pony up to any trooper, right or wrong. If the headlight on the car was in fact functional, Trooper Wyrick is a liar and His credibility is shot from the beginning. Trooper Smith is just a Macho SmartA**. If I were the Husband in this matter I would be pissed also and would act as such attorney or not. Trooper Wyrick had no business with trooper Smith in this matter. Why text him anything when You are in the middle of an arrest and taking care of business at the police department. I think Wyrick just saw a pretty lady and came up with an excuse to make a stop and do a little gawking. If the headlight works Wyrick needs to be fired. Smith needs to be fired for being a Macho Smart A**. Like Barney Said.... "NIP IT, NIP IT IN THE BUD".


I bet the cops were texting while driving! Isn't that illegal?

I've never seen or heard of

I've never seen or heard of a LEO giving him or herself a ticket!!

Still a danger

It's just as dangerous for a LEO to text and drive as it is for any other person. In fact, I see them using their laptops while driving down the road. Isn't this hypocritical?


Read the law.. LEOs are exempt from THAT law... go figure... It fell under the loophole becvause of their "mobile" text box's.. er I mean Panasonic Toughbooks... However.. they can't speed unless running emergency traffic... Funny... I see them texting AND speeding all the time.. while NOT running emergency traffic... go go go figgggure...

Unfortunately cops are

Unfortunately cops are exempt from these traffic laws. It is sad, but true. I was nearly in a wreck because a cop was using his laptop while driving and he came over onto me. I was able to avoid it, barely.

It's not uncommon for them use their laptops, text, and do other illegal activities while driving.

I have been trying to get video of them doing this... I call out for everyone to post to Youtube any video you get of cops texting or using their laptops while driving.

Goodness graceous! Bev's

Goodness graceous! Bev's gonna have to call this trooper too Raleigh and wash his mouth out with soap and send Eddie to obedience school for a few weeks!

Here is the law . . .

If I was Mr. Tessener I would have gone ballistic too. He is a lawyer, so he knew that THE TROOPER KNEW that he did NOT have to arrest Mrs. Tessener to test her. She did not refuse to test, she just said she wanted to have the test done in front of a witness because she was uncomfortable with the situation (bogus headlight and leaning into her window unnecessarily). She just did not want to be alone with this guy any longer thgan she absolutely had to. She did not ask to be arrested and probably did not know about her right to be tested before arrest. NCHP Trooper Wyrick did though. He could have easily advised her that if she was wished to submit to a prearrest chemical test she could accompany him to the police station and sign a written request for a CHEMICAL ANALYSIS BEFORE ARREST OR CHARGE. When she tested 0.00 he could have released her UNCHARGED without an order from a magistrate. It didn't go down that way because Wyrick didn't want it to. He wanted to hassle the woman and cuff her hands behind her back. HERE IS THE LAW -- General Statute 20-16.2(i) Right to Chemical Analysis before Arrest or Charge. - A person stopped or questioned by a law enforcement officer who is investigating whether the person may have committed an implied consent offense may request the administration of a chemical analysis before any arrest or other charge is made for the offense. Upon this request, the officer shall afford the person the opportunity to have a chemical analysis of his or her breath, if available, in accordance with the procedures required by G.S. 20-139.1(b). The request constitutes the person's consent to be transported by the law enforcement officer to the place where the chemical analysis is to be administered. Before the chemical analysis is made, the person shall confirm the request in writing and shall be notified:

(1) That the test results will be admissible in evidence and may be used against you in any implied consent offense that may arise;

(2) Your driving privilege will be revoked immediately for at least 30 days if the test result is 0.08 or more, 0.04 or more if you were driving a commercial vehicle, or 0.01 or more if you are under the age of 21.

(3) That if you fail to comply fully with the test procedures, the officer may charge you with any offense for which the officer has probable cause, and if you are charged with an implied consent offense, your refusal to submit to the testing required as a result of that charge would result in revocation of your driving privilege. The results of the chemical analysis are admissible in evidence in any proceeding in which they are relevant.

This request must be made

This request must be made BEFORE the trooper says you are under arrest. Read and comprehend please.

Chapter 20

While you are feeling like you need to spit out Chapter 20. Repeat the part under 20-16.2(i) where it says: a person (trophy wife) MAY request an admistration of a chemical analysis. She clearly did not, and furthermore after she was arrested for refusing sobriety test(you know those things that help determine impairment) that goes out the window. As far as the texts go, last time I checked our constitution that everybody like to bring up that was violated?? What happened to freedom of speech?? This was a text people not directed at anyone but Officer Wyrick. He did not offend anyone. Yall need to start over with this story and slow down and get the facts. WWAY, if you really want a story be in Raleigh in the morning, you know where he will be. !) Ask him why he lied, although he is an attorney, its true if he said it right?? 2) why has he not been available for comment?? he may be getting ready for his case in the AM.3)Check trophy wife for a black eye because he did have to leave and get her out of jail. 4) ask him how much that headlight cost the next day? 5) ask when he is going to do another interview because I would like to hear that!!!

Thank you very much for this

Thank you very much for this information. I was told years ago by a responsible trooper of the facts as set forth by you. This information should be a lead story on WWAY as well as in the newspaper. They (law enforcement) do not tell motorists that a driver can request to be administered a chemical analysis (and not be under arrest) and the cop must comply with the request. Once again, this information needs to be communicated publicly.