The latest incident looks pretty innocuous, but given their history, I figured a single thread would be good. message_search.aspx?type=topic&searchstring=trooper

Are most state highway patrols this controversial, or are we special?

7/6/2011 10:39:51 AM

What is the jurisdiction of the NC highway patrol specifically?

7/6/2011 10:42:19 AM

durrrrrrrrrr

7/6/2011 10:51:46 AM

Those poor guys have had their photo on the front page everywhere. I can't believe people would stoop so low as to make fun of their appearance. This is why police officers should wear blacked out helmets at all times and remain anonymous except for their own bookkeeping purposes. It would prevent crazy civilians from making such outrageous claims and subjecting these fine officers to such public shame.

7/7/2011 9:02:17 PM

LOL, these guys are fucking idiots. You know the husband is a lawyer and you're still trying to dick with him?

7/7/2011 9:36:32 PM

Seems like the husband was the real dick

7/7/2011 10:37:04 PM

Quote :

" 12:03:51 a.m. (from Wyrick to Smith): “This woman refused all roadside testing, and blew .00. Her husband is a trial lawyer and told me I should be ashamed of myself.” - 12:05:02 a.m. (from Smith to Wyrick): “Hahahaha f--- her and f--- him. She say how much she’d had to drink?” - 12:07:13 a.m. (from Wyrick to Smith): “She said 1 drink at 7pm.” - 12:07:30 a.m. message from Smtih to Wyrick: “F---her.” It is approximately 12:15 a.m., according to Hoyt Tessner's letter, that Wyrick says he is taking Gina Tessener to the magistrate's office. It's on that trip that Smith stops Hoyt Tessener, who is following Wyrick, but Smith releases him without issuing a citation. Another message exchange occurs between the troopers, beginning at 12:31 a.m.: - 12:31:36 a.m. (from Smith to Wyrick): “TELL HIM IF HE WANTS TO COP AN ATTITUDE TO FEEL FREE AND COME BACK AND ILL ------ HIM THAT SPEED.” - 12:33:42 a.m. (from Wyrick to Smith): “HOW FAST” - 12:33:59 a.m. (from Smith to Wyrick): “58” Wyrick and Gina Tessener appear on security video at the magistrate's office at 12:44 a.m. "

Although I completely understand that the officer was following NC State law by having to take her to the magistrate before he could let her go, the coorespondance between the two officers in regards to Mr. and Mrs. Tessener is completely unprofessional.

The trooper should have show a lot more empathy for the fact that he accused her of drunk driving, then she proved she wasn't by blowing a .00 twice, and then having to drag the innocent woman all the way to a courthouse where a magistrate could legally let her go.

I would have been aggrevate like Mr. and Mrs. Tessener as well. Although as a lawyer he should have realized what the troopers were legally require to do and not have though that his lawyer status was going to give him special treatment.

7/8/2011 8:45:29 AM

If she had just consented to a roadside blow(snicker snicker) all of this could have been avoided. Roadside breathalyzers are 100% accurate and dependable.

I'll bet she sobered up on the way to the magistrate.

7/8/2011 8:49:30 AM

Quote :

"Roadside breathalyzers are 100% accurate and dependable."

there is always a chance for error, hence you should NEVER blow, period. talk to a lawyer, and they'll tell you the same thing.

7/8/2011 9:08:29 AM

Damn, looks like the Troopers were actually right here:
http://www.nccrimecontrol.org/div/hp/documents/ReportofInvestigationTrooperE.S.Wyrick.pdf

7/8/2011 3:14:38 PM

The reports still contain a lot of hearsay. The only new piece of evidence that wasn't already out is that the Tessener's car had a history of intermittent headlight problems, which gives credibility to the reason for the initial stop.

It seems to me there is plenty of blame to go around. But the SHP has to be held to a higher standard. The texts from Trooper Smith are unacceptable and show that he has contempt for the public he is sworn to protect.

I think this case also highlights a procedural problem, which is it isn't necessary to arrest someone prior to bringing them in for a breathalyzer. She declined to take the optional roadside tests, opting for the more accurate breathalyzer and witnesses. If she hadn't already been arrested, she could have blown 0.0 and been out the door. Nobody really got their feelings hurt until she stayed in custody for another hour waiting to see a magistrate.

My understanding is that in this situation, she could have asked for a pre-arrest test and she would have been transported to the breathalyzer location without being arrested.

My take is you should never consent to the field sobriety tests, as they are completely subjective. If you think you are sober, you might as well do the alcosensor, since it isn't admissible anyway. But then again, by that point, the officer is hell bent on bringing you in anyway...

Finally, the SHP must install cameras in the cruisers. There is no excuse for this. There was a time when practicality required an officer's testimony to be taken as fact, but with newer technology, this is obsolete. Law enforcement needs to start collecting video and audio evidence, because their word is no better than the word of the accused.

[Edited on July 9, 2011 at 9:49 AM. Reason : ?]

7/9/2011 9:45:48 AM

is anyone really surprised that cops helped other cops get out of trouble here?

7/9/2011 11:00:05 AM

Yea, but they did find enough evidence that Mr. Tessener's letter is at least an exaggeration.

That said, I do not believe he had probable cause to arrest her on suspicion of DWI. There is no way she reeked of alcohol and then blew a 0.0 30 minutes later. There was no other evidence in support of that. I understand that refusing field sobriety tests and alcosensor is considered probable cause, but I question that he even had reasonable suspicion to go there.

What really should have happened here, is he should have pulled her over, let her know about the head light, and sent her on her way.

7/9/2011 1:27:55 PM

Quote :

"I think this case also highlights a procedural problem, which is it isn't necessary to arrest someone prior to bringing them in for a breathalyzer. She declined to take the optional roadside tests, opting for the more accurate breathalyzer and witnesses. If she hadn't already been arrested, she could have blown 0.0 and been out the door. Nobody really got their feelings hurt until she stayed in custody for another hour waiting to see a magistrate. My understanding is that in this situation, she could have asked for a pre-arrest test and she would have been transported to the breathalyzer location without being arrested."

Alcohol Screening Test Device(s) (ASTD) are just as accurate as the "breathalyzer."; they use the same exact technology. However, the "breathalyzer" has built in accuracy/calibration and safety checks built in.

I have never scene a properly calibrated ASTD give an inaccurate or false reading; then again it should only be used to determine if alcohol is the impairing substance.

A pre-arrest is a good idea but here are some tips if you plan on using it:

a)if you request a pre-arrest test you are not under arrest but you are subject to being searched and handcuffed before being transported to the testing site. If you refuse to be searched/handcuffed/transported, you are not entitled to a pre-arrest test.

b) If you take a pre-arrest test and you blow over the legal limit; that reading can/will be used as evidence.

Lastly, I will argue that Standardized Field Sobriety Testing (SFTS) are objective and not subjective: an officer is looking for specific cues of impairment during each test. The number of cues present during each test gives an accurate % that the person has a BAC greater than .10. The percentage varies between the three tests and this only applies to standardized test which requires certification.

Quote :

"I understand that refusing field sobriety tests and alcosensor is considered probable cause, but I question that he even had reasonable suspicion to go there."

Sure, the court says you have the right to detain to dispel or confirm your suspicion; the odor of alcohol would warrant this. The breath testing instruments the state uses truncate values; for example, the driver could have been 0.009999999999999999 but the instrument will only read 0.00.

Lets kick the ballistics:

Odor is present at 0.02 g/210L and alcohol is eliminated from the body at 0.0165 g/210L per hour. If she was a 0.02 @ roadside, then the test is administered over an hour later, her BAC could have been in the range of 0.0033, but this is truncated to 0.00.


[Edited on July 9, 2011 at 2:00 PM. Reason : ....]

7/9/2011 1:44:41 PM

Quote :

"If she had just consented to a roadside blow"

I was under the impression she refused a non-breathalyser sobriety test. IE touch your nose, walk the line type shit.

7/9/2011 5:43:00 PM

I believe she refused to do both, which is honestly the smartest thing to do.

7/9/2011 7:12:53 PM

Quote :

"I have never scene a properly calibrated ASTD give an inaccurate or false reading; then again it should only be used to determine if alcohol is the impairing substance. "

I must be a freak of nature or they don't calibrate the things worth a shit here.

I blew a .16 on a handheld and a .04 at the magistrates office within 15 minutes of one another

7/9/2011 8:01:27 PM

1) mouth alcohol can account for a higher reading
2) Unless an officer arrested you without a ASTD screening; you were given an improper breath test because there is a 15 minute minimum observation period from the time of rights.

[Edited on July 9, 2011 at 11:17 PM. Reason : and damn it, scene = seen]

7/9/2011 11:17:06 PM

Supposedly I was never arrested. *shrug* It was years ago, but after the handhold the cop basically said I should call someone to meet me at the magistrates office...I said no thanks. At no point, including during the pre-breathalyzer questioning at the magistrates office was I ever handcuffed or mirandized.

No idea if any of that is typical, but oh well. No DUI for me. Although just from that horrid time sink alone, not to mention scaring the shit out if me, I wont drink so much as one beer and ever get behind the wheel. :/

It still blew me away when that thing said .16...there was just no way.

7/10/2011 1:05:04 AM

Your case was handled the "right" way. The officer waited until the intoxilyzer test before he made an arrest. It is the only test of any value in determining impairment. If this had happened in the case of the Tessener's, nobody's feelings would have gotten hurt.

You registered .16 on the alcosensor because it isn't capable of determining BAC. It is only capable of detecting alcohol. In your case, you either had alcohol in your mouth or burped.

7/10/2011 6:50:54 PM

Quote :

"Lastly, I will argue that Standardized Field Sobriety Testing (SFTS) are objective and not subjective: an officer is looking for specific cues of impairment during each test."

How can such a thing be objective? There is no record produced (ie no cameras). It is entirely subject to the officers training, judgement, and honesty. And what about people who have nerves associated with such situations. If you have a panic attack, you may not even be able to stand.

[Edited on July 10, 2011 at 6:55 PM. Reason : ?]

7/10/2011 6:54:10 PM

Quote :

"Your case was handled the "right" way. The officer waited until the intoxilyzer test before he made an arrest. It is the only test of any value in determining impairment. If this had happened in the case of the Tessener's, nobody's feelings would have gotten hurt."

You can't request a sample for chemical analysis without an arrest; its the law. [EDIT] If you have an alcohol restriction on your license you can be asked to provide a sample but you do not have to do so and you can't be taken by force. Instead you get a letter in the mail from DMV saying you can't drive anymore.

Quote :

"You registered .16 on the alcosensor because it isn't capable of determining BAC. It is only capable of detecting alcohol. In your case, you either had alcohol in your mouth or burped."

Huh? An "alcosensor" and "intoxilyzer" operate using the same exact principle/technology and they both detect BAC. The only difference is that an "intoxilyzer" has a starting calibration/accuracy check before it starts and after each sample collection.

Quote :

" It is entirely subject to the officers training, judgement, and honesty. And what about people who have nerves associated with such situations. If you have a panic attack, you may not even be able to stand."

Any person can use a lay opinion to determine impairment; officers can do the same. Those with proper standardized field sobriety test training must be certified to administer the test and be able to testify to their validity and accuracy in court.

A Test like HGN (part of the standardized testing) does not lie; nerves can not create HGN.

A good DWI investigator has tools/tests to determine if the impairment is drugs, nerves, medical, etc. An "alcosensor" is one of them; too bad so many officer run the tests improperly, have the driver blow into the "alcosensor" and arrest based on that number. A good DWI investigator only uses an "alcosensor" to determine if alcohol is the impairing substance.

[Edited on July 10, 2011 at 11:03 PM. Reason : ...]

7/10/2011 11:02:10 PM

Quote :

"You can't request a sample for chemical analysis without an arrest; its the law."

What law says that?

Quote :

"The only difference is that an "intoxilyzer" has a starting calibration/accuracy check before it starts and after each sample collection. "

lol, that is a pretty big difference. One is capable of showing .16, when the other correctly shows .04. Why would you submit to the former? Why would an officer make an arrest until the latter has been performed?

Quote :

"too bad so many officer run the tests improperly"

When you are on the side of the road, you have to assume the worst case. You shouldn't help a dishonest/incompetent cop build a case against you. Chances are, the cop will get the benefit of the doubt from the magistrate, prosecutor, judge and jury.

7/11/2011 7:30:52 AM

Here is the law saying you DO have the right to be chemically tested before arrest.

http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/gascripts/statutes/statutelookup.pl?statute=20-16.2

Quote :

"§ 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. "

7/11/2011 8:07:07 AM

These are my takeaways from this case:

1.) There is some hearsay about the initial exchange between Wyrick and Tessener that seems to indicate that Wyrick may have undermined his credibility with Tessener by making comments about the car and accusations about alcoholic breath.

2.) After this exchange, Tessener did not trust Wyrick and chose to decline field sobriety tests and alcosensor, as there would be no evidence or record, other than Wyrick's testimony.

3.) Tessener apparently didn't assert her right to chemical analysis before arrest.

4.) Wyrick, rather than advising her of her right, simply made an arrest, with no evidence of impairment other than a refusal of field tests.

5.) Wyrick could have simply advised her that she needed to come in for chemical analysis, where there would be a record and a witness, and that if she didn't agree to this, he would have to arrest her.

6.) I can see no advantage to anyone of arresting before chemical analysis. Defense attorneys claim that their client requested pre-arrest analysis (whether they did or not) and use it to exclude the post-arrest chemical analysis. They can use it to both assert that the officer didn't follow procedure and that their client's BAC had risen since they stopped driving because the officer was stalling.

7.) If she hadn't been arrested, Tessener could have blown 0.0 and been released.

8.) The real friction in this case was a result of the arrest of someone who was clearly not impaired.

This case shines a light on the cultural problems that continue to plague the SHP. The texts from Trooper Smith and the arrest first, ask questions later attitude of Wyrick show a contempt for the public that they are sworn to protect. I think the source of this problem is that the SHP's missing is too one-dimensional. They spend all their time being lied to by citizens, and come to believe that everyone is a liar and a scofflaw. They never really get to protect the good guy. I think the SHP (and ALE) needs to be dissolved and its resources divided up amongst local law enforcement. Those local agencies would be able to provide just as many boots on the ground for traffic enforcement.


[Edited on July 11, 2011 at 8:32 AM. Reason : ?]

7/11/2011 8:22:32 AM

http://www.newsobserver.com/2011/07/08/1328911/tessener-acquitted-of-assault.html


Not related to this thing, but Ol' Hoyt has been keeping busy.

7/11/2011 9:34:23 AM

Quote :

"Here is the law saying you DO have the right to be chemically tested before arrest."

I'm aware of a pre-arrest test; but jaZon never made mention that he requested that.

In any other case, you have to read the rights form before the use of the Intox (first paragraph states you are charged) and you have to have a citation number (charging document).

Quote :

"6.) I can see no advantage to anyone of arresting before chemical analysis. Defense attorneys claim that their client requested pre-arrest analysis (whether they did or not) and use it to exclude the post-arrest chemical analysis. They can use it to both assert that the officer didn't follow procedure and that their client's BAC had risen since they stopped driving because the officer was stalling."

If this was the case, nobody would blow ever. No blow = no PC for arrest. At least in the current situation you can articulate PC for the arrest (proving impairment) without a consenting chemical analysis (refusal).

The "rising BAC" defense is pretty much grasping at straws; there is no real hard evidence to prove that alcohol rises since the body is constantly fighting to eliminate alcohol. Empty/full stomach, etc might delay the effects of your perceived level of impairment but your BAC is still your BAC and that will show almost immediately after consumption.

[Edited on July 11, 2011 at 11:09 AM. Reason : ....]

7/11/2011 11:08:36 AM

Quote :

"I'm aware of a pre-arrest test; but jaZon never made mention that he requested that. In any other case, you have to read the rights form before the use of the Intox (first paragraph states you are charged) and you have to have a citation number (charging document)."

No where does it say that the officer can't do the right thing and say, "look buddy, you can do this the easy way or the hard way". You are proving my point that this is a culture/training/procedure problem.

It is the difference between protect and serve and hunt and destroy.

Quote :

"If this was the case, nobody would blow ever. No blow = no PC for arrest. At least in the current situation you can articulate PC for the arrest (proving impairment) without a consenting chemical analysis (refusal)."

For mild DWI's, you are better off with the results of the case than with the DMV penalties for refuse chemical analysis. But you are right, if you are wasted, you shouldn't blow.

Quote :

"The "rising BAC" defense is pretty much grasping at straws; there is no real hard evidence to prove that alcohol rises since the body is constantly fighting to eliminate alcohol. Empty/full stomach, etc might delay the effects of your perceived level of impairment but your BAC is still your BAC and that will show almost immediately after consumption."

So you are saying that BAC's don't rise? That makes no sense. Your BAC continues to rise after consuming alcohol. It takes time to absorb. The truth is, current procedures are incapable of proving driving while impaired. They merely prove that you are impaired at the time of testing. That is why the initial behavioral observations are so important (how skillfully you pull over, how you hand over your license and registration, how you talk). The officers are trained to make everyone look drunk in these initial stages.

[Edited on July 11, 2011 at 11:29 AM. Reason : ?]

7/11/2011 11:20:24 AM

Back to my point, when law enforcement arrests law abiding citizens with essentially 0 evidence, it undermines the law and LEOs. She is a well to do lady, she was not drunk, and yet she was arrested and cuffed, embarrassed and demeaned. Other law abiding citizens see that and know that no one is safe.

All he had to do was take her in for a breathalyzer and let her go when she blew 0.0. If he had done that, the SHP would not have lost even more of its reputation. When you are in a hole, STOP DIGGING!!!

[Edited on July 11, 2011 at 11:26 AM. Reason : ?]

7/11/2011 11:25:23 AM

Quote :

"there is always a chance for error, hence you should NEVER blow, period. talk to a lawyer, and they'll tell you the same thing."

What should you do when pulled over?

Let's start with this: They ask if you've been drinking in just about 100% of cases. In my experience the circumstances don't matter, they just ask everyone.

#1) what should you say when they ask you the question?

I mean, I don't drink and drive at all, but I might still want to get all libertarian on them. So how should someone behave in such a stop? How should they respond to an officer's questions about drinking? And then what should they say to not consent to tests, should they ask for a chemical test before arrest, and what about witnesses?

I pretty much don't believe that any test of any kind is not admissible in court. If you do a field test (even a chemical one) of any kind you are relying on an unrecorded transaction between you and the officer with no one else present. I still don't know how one would be protective of their rights in these situations.

7/11/2011 12:21:16 PM

Quote :

"No where does it say that the officer can't do the right thing and say, "look buddy, you can do this the easy way or the hard way". You are proving my point that this is a culture/training/procedure problem."

Quote :

"§ 20-16.2. Implied consent to chemical analysis; mandatory revocation of license in event of refusal; right of driver to request analysis. (a) Basis for Officer to Require Chemical Analysis; Notification of Rights. – Any person who drives a vehicle on a highway or public vehicular area thereby gives consent to a chemical analysis if charged with an implied-consent offense. Any law enforcement officer who has reasonable grounds to believe that the person charged has committed the implied-consent offense may obtain a chemical analysis of the person. Before any type of chemical analysis is administered the person charged shall be taken before a chemical analyst authorized to administer a test of a person's breath or a law enforcement officer who is authorized to administer chemical analysis of the breath, who shall inform the person orally and also give the person a notice in writing that:"

Quote :

"So you are saying that BAC's don't rise? That makes no sense."

You are an average person; you consume 4 beers over 4 hours (lets say each of those beers raises your BAC by .02). At the end of 4 hours, your BAC will not be .08 (4x.02) because at the same time your body is trying to eliminate the alcohol (at a rate of 0.0165 or higher)

So, you consume 4 beers in 4 hours, get stopped and then a chemical analysis is done in the at the end of the 5th hour...You are not going to be a .08 or higher..more in the range of 0.02

7/11/2011 1:29:39 PM

How about if you take 4 shots in 5 mins and drive home 2 miles. What will your BAC be when you get home, < .08. If you get pulled, you'll have alcohol in your mouth when you blow the alcosensor and will be impaired by the time you get to the intoxalyzer. If you assert your right to a pre-arrest test and are promptly given a breathalyzer, you will be under the limit. Screw around on the side of the road for 30 minutes, and you'll be over the limit.

7/11/2011 2:06:56 PM

Quote :

"Let's start with this: They ask if you've been drinking in just about 100% of cases. In my experience the circumstances don't matter, they just ask everyone. #1) what should you say when they ask you the question?"

You should tell the truth, unless you are wasted in which case you should politely decline to answer any questions. It is very unlikely that would be able to conceal the fact that you had consumed alcohol and lying would just show a guilty conscience. There is virtually no chance that saying no would produce a better result if you have actually been drinking.

7/11/2011 2:11:11 PM

Quote :

"You should tell the truth, unless you are wasted in which case you should politely decline to answer any questions."

I guess it wasn't clear that my intent was to decline to answer the question when completely sober.

As shown in the case Tessener, it's often quite fair to take questions related to alcohol to be, in fact, an accusation by the officer that you've been drinking. Upon being accused of a crime, the right thing to do is to not answer questions, regardless of all other details. Ask a lawyer.

7/11/2011 2:31:33 PM

Morally, I agree. But declining to answer that question will only be met with more suspicion. If there is no chance you are impaired, you are better off being cooperative.

But you are right that incidents like this erode the SHP's credibility and will only cause them to be met with more hostility and suspicion. Which in turn will cause them to show their ass even more. I have lost confidence in their ability to accomplish their mission and think they should be disbanded.

If you want to take a principled stand, politely decline to answer any questions and when asked to step out, assert your right to a pre-arrest test.

[Edited on July 11, 2011 at 2:42 PM. Reason : ?]

7/11/2011 2:40:31 PM

Quote :

"Morally, I agree. But declining to answer that question will only be met with more suspicion. If there is no chance you are impaired, you are better off being cooperative."

I feel a little bit of a contradiction here. Wasn't the advice to not answer if you are impaired? Well, there's a difference between being cooperative and answering the question i guess. Obviously I would want to be respectful, I don't want to be jerk for no reason.

Either way, the ability to remain silent is mostly pointless if no one ever remains silent when innocent. Although I guess there's room to disagree, as long as it's not directly incriminating.

And I'm kind of surprised by the information in this thread. The right to ask for a pre-arrest test is useless to anyone who doesn't know about it.

7/11/2011 2:56:06 PM

I don't think it is a contradiction. I think you may be confusing probable cause and reasonable doubt. One applies before the arrest and the other applies in court. The police don't need you to admit to drinking to establish probable cause. If you refuse to answer any questions, you can bet your ass they will find probable cause to arrest you. In court, however, refusing to answer questions cannot be held against you.

It just a short game vs. long game situation. If you are not drunk, your goal is to go about your business with the least amount of hassle. You don't really want to get arrested, have your car towed, call a witness, appear before a magistrate and spend hours doing this.

If you are drunk, you want to maximize your chances in court. You probably won't be able to avoid the officer's suspicion no matter what you do. If you think you might blow over .16, you should refuse the chemical analysis. You will lose your license for a year, but you will anyway. You goal at that point is to stay out of jail.

[Edited on July 11, 2011 at 4:23 PM. Reason : ?]

7/11/2011 4:20:12 PM

I think its quiet obvious that this trooper was just making shit up to get an arrest, got pissed about it, and acted like a douchebag.


I think he should be removed from the force due to the attitude he shows towards proven innocent people.

7/12/2011 8:48:31 AM

After reading the first half of that report, I think Wynick deserves the boot. His behavior sounds completely unprofessional, and his testimony is full of odd coincidences.

Did anyone else see the officer on the right and think it looks like a photoshop with Obama's face?

7/12/2011 9:44:02 AM

Quote :

"Trooper suspended four days for profane texts"

http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/9857404/

7/14/2011 11:09:09 AM

Cool vacation bro.

7/14/2011 12:25:01 PM

Quote :

"After an internal investigation, the patrol cleared Wyrick of any wrongdoing, saying he was justified in making the traffic stop and had probable cause to arrest Gina Tessener. The investigation also found that Smith sent inappropriate messages to Wyrick, including some with profanity, and that he failed to document his stop of Hoyt Tessener, to whom he gave a verbal warning for driving 58 mph in a 45-mph zone. Smith will receive additional training on Highway Patrol policy before returning to full duty, the agency said."

If I'm not mistaken, no one was protesting the action of taking her to the station to do the test. If someone doesn't want to do the field tests (and doesn't ask for the pre-arrest tests), then isn't taking them in the proper procedure?

The point, I thought, was that the officer was intentionally harassing and frightening her even though she was fully cooperative.

7/14/2011 12:52:15 PM

funny, this thread. The husband was a dick, the woman had I a "I am above the law" attitude. That's why all this happened. Did the troopers act as professionally as they should have? Of course not, but if the woman had just showed an inch of cooperation at first then she would have been delayed all of 10 minutes and then been on her way.

7/14/2011 1:43:32 PM

Actually had the officer not been an asshole and claimed to have smelled alcohol o. The breath of someone who blew a 0.00 this never would have happened. Why would you ever cooperate with someone who is accusing you of something you clearly haven't done, especially when they can just make some other shit up and write you a ticket. Fuck these cops.

7/14/2011 1:56:03 PM

Husband's statement - http://www.wral.com/asset/news/local/2011/06/29/9799488/letter.pdf

7/14/2011 2:01:52 PM

Quote :

"Why would you ever cooperate with someone who is accusing you of something you clearly haven't done, especially when they can just make some other shit up and write you a ticket."

Oh for crying out loud yes.

Quote :

"the woman had I a "I am above the law" attitude"

What is the evidence for this?

7/14/2011 2:06:29 PM

investigation - http://www.nccrimecontrol.org/div/hp/documents/ReportofInvestigationTrooperE.S.Wyrick.pdf

7/18/2011 11:51:25 AM

http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/10327128/

Quote :

"RALEIGH, N.C. — In an effort to clean up its ranks after a number of state troopers were charged with misconduct, the Highway Patrol has turned to statistical software analysis, extra training and new policies, officials said Tuesday. A six-person panel appointed by Gov. Beverly Perdue last year recommended changes to the beleaguered patrol, including increased supervision of troopers statewide, more ethics training and policy changes to more closely monitor trooper conduct. The Highway Patrol has been plagued in recent years by a number of cases involving state troopers who have resigned, been fired or been disciplined for inappropriate or questionable conduct, including profiling, drunken driving, animal abuse, sex on duty and inappropriate text messages. In the 14 months since the panel's recommendations were issued, the patrol has sent more than 400 supervisors through a 36-hour ethics training course based on curriculum developed by the FBI, officials said. The patrol also is creating a Center for Leadership Development to identify and nurture troopers and managers who have innovative leadership skills. The patrol's Internal Affairs Division is using statistical software developed by Cary-based SAS Inc. to analyze data and identify trends so issues can be addressed before it gets to the level of pursuing criminal charges against a trooper, officials said. The software also allows for managers to look at complaints or violations at the the troop level."

11/2/2011 12:45:50 PM

aka

Quote :

"We told the troopers to quit fuckin' around, especially in the literal sense (at least while on the clock)"

11/2/2011 1:11:52 PM

Quote :

"funny, this thread. The husband was a dick, the woman had I a "I am above the law" attitude. That's why all this happened. Did the troopers act as professionally as they should have? Of course not, but if the woman had just showed an inch of cooperation at first then she would have been delayed all of 10 minutes and then been on her way."

Are you kidding me? What was there to cooperate with? Also, in this instance, they were quite literally "above the law", in that they didn't break the law, and "the law" was in the wrong.


Oh, and 10 minutes my ass. I've gotten detained for 30-40 minutes before for "riding a motorcycle too close to the white line". Dead serious. He called for his Sergeant to come to the scene. They breathalyzed me, and I blew a 0.0 just like I said I would. I mean, it was a weekday in the early evening, and I was riding home from the gym, just cruising down the highway.

11/2/2011 1:18:37 PM