If you are an attorney, you should know that the issue here is not how the Tesseners were treated at the station, but why the stop occurred in the first place, why the trooper claimed someone who had not been drinking enough to even register on the breathalyzer was driving while IMPAIRED (that is, VISIBLY IMPAIRED to the Trooper's satisfaction), and why the husband was set up to be stopped when the Trooper was supposedly only taking the Mrs. to the magistrate to turn her loose. I agree that it sounds like the procedure followed once she was arrested was correct, although I have never been exactly sure when she was actually arrested. I also agree that it sounds like they embellished and exaggerated several details. I don't care about them personally though. It is the behavior of the SHP Trooper that outrages me, and that should at least concern a member of a citizen legislature. This whole 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 (see DWI report, and clearly came back LATER and ADDED "I had a sip of wine around 6:30 but did not drink." The stop was at 10:45. So what if she drank a whole glass of wine more than FOUR HOURS AGO? (5) The husband 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 the husband, 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 false (but very damaging) criminal charges and transfer the Trooper if the victim of the beating will agree not to bring a civil (1983)suit. Hoyt was smart to keep his cool. If you are a lawyer and you say you don't know that this happens, you're lying. It just usually happens to less well-heeled citizens. If Smith had detained Tessener until Wyrick could have gotten him alone out of camera range it would probably have happened to Tessener too. Not only should Wyrick "be ashamed" (something he apparently is not capable of), but the entire SHP should be ashamed as well.
Mostly, YOU should be ashamed for toady-ing up to an already discredited SHP and the people who think the SHP can do no wrong (until it happens to them, of course).
More information about formatting options