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


Tags: , , , , ,

Submitted: Wed, 07/06/2011 - 3:13am
Updated: Wed, 07/06/2011 - 8:44pm
By:

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.

74 Comments

  • ohmy says:

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

  • Guest461 says:

    Although you have some valid points regarding the attorneys demeanor. The NCHP is required to uphold a certain standard of professionalism. Their recent exposure in the news regarding “professionalism” has already induced great damage to their reputation. We’re not talking about seven dollar rent-a-cops here.

    I can’t help how flaming of an a**hole Tessner was, the troopers were in control and are fully trained on how to deal with people like him. I cannot (and would not) address anyone vocally, by text, by email or any other form of communication in such a manner. It is very rude, disgusting, very unprofessional and displays a severe lack of command with the English language. In my business and in my capacity, I would expect to be fired on the spot for the use of that verb.

    You may be totally correct that the “F” word is as common as 10-4, but I doubt it as radio communications go out to all LEO’s and dispatchers. You never know these days though, almost anything is supposed to be acceptable without ruffling feathers. I’m actually beginning to wonder when rape and pedophilia will become acceptable behavior that people just need to “get over”.

  • Dharma says:

    …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.

  • Guest99 says:

    Caroline, I can’t disagree with your statement that there’s plenty of blame to go around…. but the bucket of “blame” to be carried by the troopers is much heavier than what should be carried by the Tesseners.

    If these texts are authentic, it shows that Tpr. Wyrick was untruthful.

    My wife or daughter could have been abusively detained by this man, the same as Sen. Goolsby’s wife or daughter too.

    Smith and Wyrick need to be dismissed from duty. Since Smith used this “turn of phrase” first, here’s my wish for him: “f….. you too”.

    Neither of these men have the judgment or maturity to be on their own on our highways enforcing any law.

  • Guest99x says:

    Common, a good rant on your behalf defending a cop saying a bad word. Why haven’t you addressed the fact that both troopers lied about not corresponding with each other.

    Here’s my wish for you: you should never have to experience a loved one’s being wrongfully detained by a MISCREANT.

  • Guest1985 says:

    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.

  • Peyton Garrett says:

    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”.

  • Flash says:

    You don’t have all the facts. Your response is as if you would like to join in the fun. Let me reassure you that if this were your wife you might be a little more sensitive to the matter.

  • Enforce Your Rights says:

    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.

  • Feed up says:

    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.

  • Guest CommonTater says:

    All the couch potato lawyers here….. Quite funny to read actually. Wonder if they actually interact with the real world sans the foil? Nah….

  • Commonsensenotcommontoday says:

    He wasn’t addressing Tessener. He was conversing with another officer.

    If you want to fire every law-enforcement officer who has used that word to describe an encounter, a suspect, or a boss when speaking with another officer, we’ll have about twenty guys left between Maine and San Diego.

  • Commonsensenotcommontoday says:

    …for any statement they made that is proven untrue. Assuming this is the first lapse of integrity however, I hardly think it would justify termination.

    Since some loon referenced “Sheriff Andy,” let me be just as nutty and quote the equally mythical Joe Friday: “It’s unfortunate that we have to recruit from the human race. Our officers aren’t perfect and sometimes they make mistakes, because they are human.”

  • Enforce Your Rights says:

    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?

  • Enforce Your Rights says:

    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.

  • Guest36264 says:

    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…

  • virgogirl says:

    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?

  • Commonsensenotcommontoday says:

    One thing she never needed was me coming to the rescue. She is a grown-up, and never accepted the role of damsel in distress. She is one absolutely gorgeous, intelligent, independent, TOUGH woman.

    Now I can understand Mrs. Tessener calling her husband, as he is an attorney. I have to wonder, however, did she not anticipate his over-the-top reaction, and the fact that things would go South immediately upon his arrival?

    Once it was apparent that she was not intoxicated, she (and hubby) knew that no charges would be filed. What was the justification for all the angst and anger? A delay while procedure was followed?

    Officers are trained to always retain total control of the situation. Wyrick did just that.

  • Enforce Your Rights says:

    AGREED

  • Guestblondfemale says:

    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.

  • GuestSiriusly says:

    If that had been my wife, she would have taken his roadside tests, and driven home…

  • Guestdisisbs says:

    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!!!

  • Guest1218 says:

    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.

  • Guest KMMFA says:

    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.

  • Guest313131 says:

    The right to a prearrest test IS in fact public information…ANYONE can look that law up and read and understand it. It is not an officer’s responsibility to provide that information…

    One other thing about a prearrest test…if you are stopped and being questioned and you request one…the officer that has you there does NOT have to administer that test…he only has to afford you the opportunity…basically get you to where an instrument is and it would be up to you to find someone that was certified and willing to run the test for you.

    Another little tidbit of information that is not made public, but is public information if you are willing to read the laws and case law and see how past rulings have been made…

    I am sure Tropper Wyrick would not have run the test for her if she requested a prearrest test, just as I would not have run one for anyone that I have ever stopped while investigating a DWI…

  • Enforce Your Rights says:

    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.

  • GuestSiriusly says:

    One of the original allegation was that the Trooper sent text messages to set up the husband. Folks, you can read these texts and times they were sent for yourselves. Although the language may be more colorful than some are used to, the content of the texts does not indicate that they conspired to have the husband stopped. Nowhere in the texts does it mention the names of the lawyer or his wife. It doesn’t mention the type of car he is driving. It’s nightime. The other Trooper clocks a car speeding and stops it. Unless the other Trooper is a mind reader, he has no idea who he has stopped for speeding until he gets to the window and speaks to the driver. I’m sure this particular driver, the husband, had plenty to say. We have seen on the WBPD video that the husband is less pleasant. How do you think he behaved and interacted with the Trooper? Still, he was let go with a *warning*, not a citation. Sorry, but that doesn’t add up to a set up, so the Troopers did not lie about setting him up.

  • Guest789 says:

    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.

  • Who are you? says:

    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

  • Guest9743 says:

    I don’t agree with Common most of the time but this time, yeah, I agree 100%!!!!

  • Get a clue says:

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

  • Guest 455 says:

    Spoken like a true ex cop Im sure. I have been around enough of these types for over 20 years and you can see them coming miles away. They are probably not married and have no children. Young studs trolling for women.I do not even consider troopers real cops. They have no investgative experience at all. Try to get a PI license from the state of NC after 30 years as a trooper !!!

  • Guesttoo says:

    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.

  • Guest4u says:

    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?

  • Are you kidding me? says:

    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.

  • LEOs are asses says:

    The headlight wasn’t out… It was harassment.

  • Joseph Holland says:

    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.!!!

  • Guest789 says:

    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.

  • Commonsensenotcommontoday says:

    Firing isn’t enough. We should imprison him. Does he own any real property we can seize? Why pussyfoot around – why don’t we fire him AND cut out his tongue….or amputate his thumbs, which I guess would be more appropriate in this case.

    I have refrained from commenting on this story (save for one post, to correct a point of law) for two reasons: Not enough was known and I worked in and now with law enforcement long enough to know that encountering a bully wearing a badge isn’t unheard of.

    There’s enough known now. This is NOT a case of a bully (or two) wearing a badge. This is a case of a trooper doing his best to deal with a complete flaming a**hole.

    Observing Mister Tessener’s actions and attitude, I assure you that I would have called in a backup unit as well to test HIM to see if drinking was the cause of his behavior and to simply delay him from trying anything confrontational on the road. The only issue I have with this whole story is Smith not citing him when he was doing 13 mph over the speed limit. Why give a break to an a**hole?

    For those of you who have never had to deal with people like Mister Tessener in a professional capacity, I can assure you that “f**k” is likely second to only 10-4 in law enforcement lingo when you encounter one of these people.

    Here’s hoping that Wyrick and Smith are returned to full duty quickly.

  • LEOs are Asses says:

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

  • Enforce Your Rights says:

    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.

  • what a joke says:

    This is New Hanover County-notoriously known for shady behavior from “officials” from many different positions of power. The behavior of the troopers happens (I am quite sure)-on a daily basis to many folks, not just to spouses of obnoxious attorneys. I think the husbands attitude most undoubtedly comes from probably getting away erratic behavior on a daily basis and has crossed his “county of i dont see a thing” into a county where they will get you whether you do it yourself or they set you up. It happens folks, dont think for a second that it doesnt. I wonder what kind of response some might get from the Governor’s office if you are not married to an attorney and had the same thing happen??? I’m guessing nothing but who am I??

  • Guest ex says:

    Now I know I made a good decision to leave this god awful profession after 17 years of service. I was surrounded by these types and it drove me crazy.

  • islanddog says:

    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?

  • Guestdisisbs says:

    My bad, he no where to be found.
    I guess you people never dropped the f bomb before. Trooper Smith, you sir are going to hell. How dare you text privately to someone else. Furthermore what are this weeks winning lotto numbers because if you can read between the lines and know what car tessner was driving and knew he would be speeding. You need get up with me. We could make alot of money together. I do not understand what’s going on in the world. A Guy that was arrested also stated Wyrick kept his cool? He must have been intimidated too. I think the HP needs to put 3 on their side doors as well as window nets. Move over Earnhardt there is a new intimidater in town. I think its ashamed that this lie has gone on as long as it has. Tessner should be sued for his actions. This does not have to do with the 0.0 everybody is so fascinated over. Its the lie over intimidation that obviously did not occur. Mr `Tessner you need to find another line of work. You make attorneys look bad. Good luck with your court date you are going to need it.

  • Caroline says:

    I, too, think a bit of sensitivity training might be in order here. If this is the only black mark these guys have against them then I think these Troopers should get a reprimand and be put back on the road. I doubt we ever here this out of them again. We don’t need to lose Troopers when the budget has been cut so tight, those positions may not be filled. If they are good troopers, then give them a class in customer service and let it be. If they have other marks against them, then by all means “let the punishment fit the crime”. In the meantime, Mr. Tessner needs a class in anger management and I bet next time he will know that he might be on camera.(and a class on how to describe women’s attire…pumps and a knee length cocktail dress does not equal and evening gown and high heeled shoes).
    Not saying I agree with either side of this argument. I think there’s enough blame to go around.

  • D'Law says:

    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.

  • ohmy says:

    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!

  • virgogirl says:

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

  • Guest461 says:

    You must either be kidding or have a severe lack of knowledge concerning professional conduct by a state employee!

    He had a lady under arrest, the text conversation was relative to that arrest, the situation and the individuals involved. The LEO’s were on active duty in state owned vehicles texting on state owned cell phones.

    There is NOTHING even close to a “semi-private venue” here, nothing private about it at all.

    As far as Hoyt’s tantrum…big deal. That crap happens many times everyday and has nothing to do with the outcome of whether his wife was drunk or not. You don’t have to be an attorney to be an a**hole and the NCHP is trained well to deal with those. The judge doesn’t care. There isn’t a “behavior” block to check on the ticket book.

  • Guest5001 says:

    The cell phones were NOT state-owned. They were personal cell phones.

  • Brian says:

    I call it venting to each other in a semi-private venue so that they don’t have to vent in public. I don’t blame them. I say it’s time they go ahead and charge Hoyt with speeding 58 in a 45. And Bev needs to step in and tell Hoyt to sit down and shut up.

    I wonder if the state bar is going to have something to say about Hoyt’s public tantrum? Is this the way attorneys should behave? Oh wait, the state bar is comprised of .. wait for it .. ATTORNEYS! Fox guarding the hen house.

  • sailboat2323 says:

    So Smith just happened to pull the car following Wyrick? What a coincidence!! He was speeding to try and keep up with Wyrick that sped off from the light so he could follow him to the magistrate’s office, he was out of town and did not know where it was. How do you know for sure he was even speeding? You going to take Snuffy Smith’s word? He looks like the guy from a Dueling Banjos video. He didn’t ticket him for the reason his jerk buddy was in enough trouble he just wanted to detain him and screw with him. You cop lovers sure live in a fantasy world. Go research how many cases have been against the NCSHP in the last few years. God some of you are just too much.

  • Guest5960 says:

    Your comments would have much more validity if you would refrain from name-calling. You discredit me for taking “Snuffy Smith’s” word for it so, by your own logic, you should be discredited for taking the lawyer’s word for it. I am impressed by your ability to read minds and know, without a shadow of a doubt, why someone, cop or not, chooses to do any and everything they do. Go research how many NCSHP Troopers have given their LIVES throughout the history of the organization. If having respect for a line of work that exists to protect me and the people I love makes me a “cop lover living in a fantasy world” then so be it. “God some of you are just too much.”

  • Guest1218 says:

    The divorce rate is so high because they are working all hours of the night & often deal with high risk situations. They never know when the worst case scenario may happen. Most love their spouses, but the spouses simply cannot handle the stress & worry that goes along with that marriage. Not to mention that officers have to work holidays & other times when everybody else is out having family time.

  • Guest55555 says:

    “…How many law enforcement officers were inspired to enter the profession by Andy Griffin?” — Ummmm, it’s Griffith

    “…makes them god’s gift to women…” — Capital “G” in God’s please

    “…You don’t beleive that?” — Believe is the correct spelling

    “…They’re playing games and conspiring to bust people like you and I…” — It should read You and me

    “…And I may have missed it, but when she blew zero, where was the apology? “Sorry for the cunfusion”, “you’all have a good Holiday”, …” — Confusion is the correct spelling and she was arrested, so there is no apology needed…just get the magistrate to release her and tell her to have a good day, and what word is “you’all”….should it be ya’ll? Just wondering…

    Did you go to school, or home-schooled watching episodes of “Andy Griffin?”

  • The Realist says:

    Ask yourself a few questions; How many times have you seen a patrolman pull over a vehicle driven by an attractive female? How many times have you seen a law officer riding around talking on his cell phone? How many law enforcement officers were inspired to enter the profession by Andy Griffin? Too many law enforcement officers today are Rambo wanna bes who think a uniform and a little authority makes them god’s gift to women. You don’t beleive that? Well check the law officer divorce rate. Think they’re just out there enforcing the law? Wrong again. They’re playing games and conspiring to bust people like you and I. Just read these two guy’s text messages. Are they enforcing the law or playing cop games? And I may have missed it, but when she blew zero, where was the apology? “Sorry for the cunfusion”, “you’all have a good Holiday”, “if there’s anything we can do to make your stay a more pleasant one, just let us know”. That’s what Andy would have said.

  • GuestSiriusly says:

    It must be nice to have never vented your frustration or anger at anyone. I can think of several times that a family member, friend, co-worker, boss, and even the occassional stranger, would do or say something that I would deem unfair or uncalled for. If I was lucky, I would have an outlet to vent my frustration. A chance to say what I needed to say to a sympathetic ear and move on, soon forgetting what had upset me. If you work with the public in any customer service compacity, you will occassionally come across someone who will not be satisfied dispite your best efforts. Sometimes these “customers” get abrasive, unfriendly, and rude to the server trying to provide service. But after the service is over, who can blame the server for venting in *private* with a co-worker later about having to deal with a difficult customer. Does it make the server less professional? No, it makes him/her human. The Trooper did not swear publically. He doesn’t swear at the husband, “difficult customer”. He vents in a private manner to a co-worker, and when it comes down to it, this text was supposed to be private and confidentual. I think the Trooper was civil to not write the husband, “difficult customer”, a citation for speeding, when it would have been very easy to do so. As for misuse of equipment provided by hard earned tax dollars, the cell phones were owned by the individuals and not provided by the state.

  • Guest8755323d says:

    Really? How about if his story went the other way?

  • Guest1968 says:

    Come on Ramon, I usually stand up for WWAY, but this is a bit much. This dude was drunk. He was driving drunk. He could have killed someone with his wreckless behavior, someone innocent. He has no credibility and should not be even remotely considered a witness. This is a JOKE! Drinking and Driving don’t mix, and shame on you WWAY for casting this dude in the spotlight. WOW.

  • Guest123456 says:

    When trolling someone on the internet and correcting their grammar, be sure to get it right. Y’all not ya’ll. You are not omitting any letters in the word “all”, it’s the “you” part you are ommiting letters from. Troll elsewhere and look up “Apostrophe”.

    Wyrick is a pompus blowhard. He stands around and his face is red all the time with veins popping out. He’s high strung and I have had personal encounters with this man. He is testy and gets pissed easily. Very intimidating as well. Just because an officer tells you to do something doesn’t mean you do it. They work for the state, not you and I like you like to believe. Do they ever defend someone in court? No, they are always in the prosecution.

    He jokes and laughs in the courtroom while others are made to sit in silence. They all play with their cell phones while we are not to be seen with them. All these troopers think they are high and mighty. They need to go back to Peace Officers not LEOs. They are there for our protection, not meter maids sent to collect money for their cronies to pay for their salaries.

    He had no resonable suspicion to arrest her. How could he? “I smell alchohol.” is not resonable cuase to arrest. You need a little more than that… They need tighter reigns, not looser reigns on these troopers, police etc. They need to be at a MUCH higher standard than eveyone else. They effect eveyones lives, they better be squeeky clean.

  • I AM THE LAW says:

    There you go…another turn in this story. So no matter what happened iside of the holding area, the texts are proof that the troopers lied about no communication between each other and they did in fact set them up. I wonder how many other times this has happened in the county. Abuse of power??? I think so. I hope they are both gone. We don’t need that kind of crap in our county.

  • Carol says:

    Troopers shouldn’t be saying “F them” etc.

    The husband might be a jack@@s but that doesn’t excuse the troopers from setting up the husband and pulling him. They should be terminated.

  • Guest56398 says:

    I’m not sure how you came to the conclusion that the text messages prove the troopers “set him up”. The text messages, however distasteful, prove exactly the opposite. While the two troopers communicated, which is a standard occurrence, the texts revealed that there was no plan to stop the husband. If the second trooper really wanted to “harass” the husband, why did he let him go after clocking him traveling 58 mph in a 45 mph zone?

  • the real hp says:

    I do not recall anywhere or at anytime did those troopers say they didn’t have communication with each other you fool.

  • Guestswefg says:

    Does anyone else think that maybe one of the reason SO much evidence against these troopers has come out is that someone or a group of someone’s inside the department wanted this information to come out? That this officer has a history, even if undocumented, and that certain powers-that-be have gone out of their way to make sure this information got out to the media and the public?

    Maybe karma just came back to bite him in the arse. You reap what you sow…….

  • Guest2020 says:

    When I first saw the headline for this story I was thinking that this was probably just another attorney being a horse’s behind. Then I read the letter that the attorney wrote and thought that it looked like I was wrong. The more that comes out the more that I realize that my first impression was the correct impression.

  • Guestdisisbs says:

    I guess that’s not good enough
    1. An independent witness, drunk but independent
    2. Text messages. Some f bombs but not illegal
    3. DCI messages. Sounds like to me he should have been “stroked”
    4. That lying POS can’t be found. Although, he better be in court in wake county in morning

    What else do y’all need

    Thanks Mr drunk dude for stepping up.

  • Guestrgrg says:

    state employees generally have a policy by which any and all equipment they use electronically is governed. It is called the “acceptable use” policy. Violation of that policy can be a miriad of reprecuctions..but to right profane language and language that is considered by most courts as “abusive” towards a citizen, while in the process of traffic stop (and where the texts written while driving? which is illegal)..it would seem that at the very least this was an abuse of the priviledge of the tax paid for devices that these “officers” were intrusted with. No, they should never be employed. EVER. I do not feel safe..and neither should anyone else if this is their 1.) attitude 2.) behavior 3.) disregard for civility 4.) misuse of tax payer equipment.

  • Guest1950 says:

    Well, the text message clearly demonstrates the attitude of this state employee towards the citizens of the state he is sworn “to protect and to serve”. One does not have to read between the lines to see that Mr Smith should not have the word “trooper” preceding his name. His attitude is shameful and he is a disgrace. It seems that Smith has “copped an attitude”. One question to law enforcement: is this an exception or is it the rule? Don’t go away mad Smith, just go away.

  • Gbarb43 says:

    Senator Goolsby,the conduct of the two troopers that you have come out in public and so rigoursly defended,is far from the “0” tolerance that Gov.Perdue expects from state personnel.Maybe, you should have reserved your opinion until the investigation is completed,unless you personally condone this type of behavior of intimidation and harassment of the good citizens of this state. I urge you and Gov.Perdue to stand up and do the right thing and terminate these two.The citizens and the traveling public do not need to be scared,intimidated,or harrassed by officers that we put our trust in.There are many, many good,hard working officers out there that represent this state to the highest standard.Throw these two bad apples over the fence and let them rot.

  • Guest28405 says:

    Come on WWAY. Any significiant reason to throw that in the title. Who cares about what one trooper sent the other. It’s plain as day they didn’t set them up for another stop by texting. Just 2 troopers texting one another about what’s going on. Happens all the time and god forbid you inquire into all LEO’s texts and MDT messages; no doubt you’d get an eyefull. But continue on this path and show who the real culprit(s) is/are. Based on how Hoyt has acted, I’m guessing this was all his doing but the wife has not disagreed with any of it. We’ll see which one, if not both of them are guilty soon.

  • Guest461 says:

    ..and total lack of professionalism! THAT is why it was reported! This story has flip-flopped more times than a cold fish on a hot deck. It also shows the troopers aren’t nearly as innocent as they make themselves out to be. Sure, they may have “acted professional” when they knew they were on camera, but they forgot about this little tid-bit and it’s going to bite them hard! These foul-mouthed texts just blew away any credibility these officers had. It shows their demeanor, their spite, their LACK of professionalism and their power-mongering attitudes! It’s great to see the truth come out as it was really looking one-sided there for a while. It’s a crying shame that our tax money is paying for lunk-heads like those “sooper-troopers” to patrol our highways. Nothing other than a complete disappointment to the public and ANOTHER disgrace to the NCHP!

    I was actually on the troopers sides until their filty communications were exposed. Now…replace them with professional troopers that know how to use English and put these two hot-headed, “tough guys” to the curb!!

  • Dman says:

    Before you start calling people names read the officer’s DUI affadavit.

Leave a Reply