Local News

Court Tells Highway Patrol to Take Back Fired Trooper

Posted July 3, 2007

— An appeals court ruled Tuesday that the Highway Patrol must reinstate a trooper it fired after he was caught up in a prostitution sting almost five years ago but never charged with a crime.

The issue revolved around an argument that the patrol treated Trooper Edward K. Royal more harshly than it had treated other troopers who the force said had failed to conform to the law and had engaged in conduct unbecoming an officer.

The case stemmed from Royal's talking with a decoy female Fayetteville police officer in July 2002. City police did not charge Royal, but they did make his Highway Patrol superiors aware of the incident.

Wake County Superior Court Judge Narley Cashwell had ruled that the state was wrong not to follow an administrative law judge's  direction to reinstate Royal, even though he had lost his certification as a law-enforcement officer. The state Court of Appeals said in its ruling Tuesday that Cashwell had made the right decision.


Please with your WRAL.com account to comment on this story. You also will need a Facebook account to comment.

Oldest First
View all
  • I Hate Hippies Jul 4, 2007

    the HP is full of crooks

  • applesmith Jul 4, 2007

    Ididnt think was against the law to talk to someone................ oh its the Super troopers were talking about here that explains it........................

  • Jokers Wild Jul 4, 2007

    Well they could always hire him back, and then turn around and fire him the next day because of having NO certification.

  • wstarhawks Jul 4, 2007

    What would have happened if the HP had arrested the decoy officer on charges of loitering for prostitution?

  • jewel08 Jul 4, 2007

    the entire facts are not here. He was not charged for a reason...maybe maybe......there was not enough basis for the charge.......talking is alot different than propositioning....I know ALOT of hw patrolmen and I would trust them with my female family members and friends and myself......have to know more facts than what are stated to convict

  • parr4246 Jul 4, 2007

    even though he had lost his certification as a law-enforcement officer. So I guess he'll get his certification back........?? And probably either get back pay for the past 5 years and or sue the state..................!!!

  • djofraleigh Jul 4, 2007

    Just know that this is NOW the kind of person pulling your wife, mother, daughter over in the middle of nowhere...the kind that may proposition for illegal behavior. As for the disgraced officer's side, he gets over a hundred grand and his job back with seniority, but if ONE woman makes a charge on him, he is toast. It's worse when such things involve health care providers. Contrary to the self-image thinking of some, most patrol officers do not solicit women, and don't have to.

  • it is getting worse Jul 4, 2007

    you better hope your wives or girlfriends or sisters never get pulled over by him... he may ask for something... just to much muddy water... makes me uncomfortable

  • Winthro Jul 4, 2007

    You are making assumptions that he had done something wrong or illicit. If what he had supposedly done had met the elements for the general statutes, I assure you, he would have been charged. Truth be told, they couldn't make a case based on the evidence at hand.

  • Arbi Jul 4, 2007

    There seems to be a murder everyday in the triangle area. Leave the hookers alone and let's take care of more important business.