Local News

State Trooper Charged With DWI

Posted September 9, 2007

— State troopers charged one of their own with driving-while-impaired in Nash County.

First Sgt. John B. Warren, 41, was placed on investigative leave following the arrest, Highway Patrol spokesman Lt. Everett Clendenin said.

The Nash County Sheriff’s Department was contacted early Sunday morning about an argument between Warren and a woman at her home near N.C. Highway 97.

Lt. Clendenin said when troopers arrived at the residence, they determined Warren drove there impaired. They arrested him on suspicion of drunken driving. Breath tests showed he had a blood-alcohol content level of 0.13, said Clendenin. The legal limit is 0.08.

Warren was charged with DWI around 4 a.m. Sunday.

The Highway Patrol will swiftly investigate the incident and implement any disciplinary action against Warren, Colonel W. Fletcher Clay, commander of the Highway Patrol, said in a statement.

"We hold our troopers to a high standard, and we expect them to obey all North Carolina laws and patrol policies," Clay said. "Be assured that such actions are not tolerated and appropriate disciplinary action is taken as quickly as possible."

Warren is a 19-year veteran of the force and is stationed in Raleigh.


This story is closed for comments.

Oldest First
View all
  • slappyh99 Sep 11, 2007

    What you have to remember is that Nash County (along with Wilson & Edgecombe) is in the 7th Dismissal District. It's hard enough to convict a drunk driver in that district when the officer see's the drunk driving. According to this story no one saw the trooper driving. If that is true, can you say dismissal or not guilty. He may come in and plead guilty but if not and there is no witness that can put him behind the wheel, and he was not behind the wheel when arrested, I seriously doubt he will get convicted.

  • shine Sep 11, 2007

    patpla: There have been revisions in the DWI laws some went on just before 07. It used to be that if the keys were not in the ignition and no one actually witnessed you drive - it would be difficult to get a conviction - heard a bunch of those arguements in court and most of the time the "state" lost and the judge ruled not guilty. I am sure there have been some things changed over the years - and I don't keep up with it like I used to.

  • nobodyz bizness Sep 11, 2007

    donut boys strike again! Just watch out, you have to follow the law or they'll get ya...but they can do like they wish. How does it feel to be on the other side of the law donut boy?

  • patpla Sep 11, 2007

    I thought they have to see u driving before they could charge someone w/dui

  • shine Sep 11, 2007

    Look at it this way... he is a trooper - but he is a human just like you and me. He is going to do the same things that happen to John Q Public just like everyone else does. I am not taking up for him but he has the same responsibilities, problems, and bills to pay at the end of the day as everyone else.

    The NCHP has been catching alot of heat for the last couple of weeks and rightfully so. They are no more in front of the law than the tax payer (John Q Citizen).

    They also have an effort to uphold the law and not break it - if they are going defend it.

    If you are a doctor does it give you the right to determine who should die and who should live?

    I am not sure according to the article if "he was not seen driving" could he be convicted ?

    There must have been more to the story than we all have read.

  • claudnc Sep 10, 2007

    travised - the officer does not have to physically see you behind a wheel driving to cite you with DWI. You can be pulled over on the side of the road, in a development or anywhere else for that matter - if the keys are in the car you can be charged with a DUI.

  • momof2 Sep 10, 2007

    True-Not all LEO are bad. This Trooper should have his day in court like any other person. However, it is a reality that there are those LEO who abuse their positions and use it for their own personal gain and get away with it because they are LEO. I had a Trooper that was mad at me personally and made verbal threats in front of my co-workers that I was going to find out what it is like to **** with somebody. Then he followed through with his threat and I had to spend $1500 out of my pocket to defend myself against a bogus charge. I thank God that the judge saw the truth and found me not guilty. But I live in fear that there are troopers out there who can pull anyone over and charge them for anything out of spite and vengence and get away with it. There are cover ups everyday and that is wrong. It is one thing for a trooper to make a very bad choice such as in this story. But when a trooper purposely abuses his authority and gets away with it, that needs some attention.

  • cufher69 Sep 10, 2007

    Another bad day for SHP

  • momof2 Sep 10, 2007

    I am reading this story and at the bottom of all the comments there is a box that says "Ads by Google". The 3 ads listed are "State Trooper Careers", "All Arrest Records" and NC State Trooper--free guide to online degrees". Sorry--just found it amusing.

  • Travised Sep 10, 2007

    Ok. So it does appear he was on duty when called to the "argument" by dispatch. That was what I was trying to figure out in the article. If he was on duty or not. If not in his car it should be public intoxication offence and not DWI. I'll defend the officer (or any person) in this situation. As long as the accused is not in the car when found it should not be a DWI.

    Should Law Enorcement be held to higher standards? We don't have multi tier laws on the books. So enforce the same law no matter who breaks them.

    In theory then, it should be a reprimand on his record and charged with public intoxication for the courts to deal with.