Earlier this afternoon, Fred Smoot’s lawyer, Brian K. McDaniel, addressed an email to me because I wrote a story yesterday about Fred Smoot pissing his pants after being arrested for DUI. As his defense attorney, McDaniel is dutifully refuting the alleged account of the pants pissing, and wants us to pass along this claim of non-pants pissing to you. But we weren’t the only ones to pick up on the story, mostly because “Drunk NFL Player Pisses Pants” is fun, so we assume that the following email was addressed to a number of blogs – anyone Mr. McDaniel could find that wrote about it, really.
Anyway, Fred Smoot allegedly did not allegedly piss his pants at the police station after getting arrested for DUI.
Subject: Please forward this to Dylan Murphy re. Arrest of Mr. Fred Smoot
“MCDANIEL & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
1025 First Street, S.E. Penthouse 13 | Washington, DC 20003 | T 202.331.0793 | F 202.331.7004
McDaniel & Asso. P.A | firstname.lastname@example.org
Brian K. McDaniel
January 25, 2013
Via Electronic Mailing
Erroneous Fact Included in the Affidavit in Support of the
Arrest of Mr. Frederick Smoot.
From the Desk of Attorney Brian K. McDaniel:
Thank you in advance for your receipt and review of this correspondence.
This office represents Mr. Frederick “Fred” Smoot in connection with his arrest
for allegedly operating his vehicle while intoxicated in the early morning hours of
December 30, 2012. While I will not discuss herein the substance of the stop or
the underlying allegations which gave rise to the formal charges (as we intend to
address those matters through the formal litigation process), I would like to take
the time to address some of the plainly erroneous and factually unsupported
information included in the Affidavit created by Officer Seth Carll. This, in the
hope that you will take the time to clarify some of these issues as aggressively
as the original reporting was published.
Firstly, Mr. Smoot was not arguing and had not argued with the young
lady he was with on this evening. I have spoken with this witness who confirms
that after leaving a local DC restaurant, she was travelling behind Mr. Smoot’s
vehicle when he was pulled over for the purported absence of tags on is vehicle.
Contrary to what was reported in the aforementioned affidavit, the witness
was not his “girlfriend” but was a casual acquaintance and there had been no
argument that evening.
Secondly, much has been made of the allegation that Mr. Smoot urinated
on himself while being held in the “search area” of the First District Precinct.
This allegation is plainly false and was included in the report only to embarrass
Mr. Smoot when it was predictably “picked up and ran with” by the local and
national media. So that I am clear, Mr. Smoot did not urinate on himself while
in the precinct or at any other time during or while he was in custody. A fair
and objective review of the Affidavit created by Officer Carll reveals that the
portion reporting these intentionally embarrassing mistruths are memorialized in
hand writing as an add on to the rest of the report which was done in type set.
(Please review the Affidavit). These Affidavits are historically completed by law
enforcement officers after the completion of the processing of anyone who is
arrested. Unless Officer Carll broke with protocol and began to do his paperwork
prior to the processing of Mr. Smoot (an occurrence which is highly unlikely) this
information was included as an after thought and only to sensationalize the arrest
of Mr. Smoot.
While I understand that, to report on the counter position of Mr. Smoot
regarding these matters may not be as sexy as reporting the purposefully
embarrassing information included in Officer Carll’s Affidavit, it is certainly the
right and fair thing to do.
If you have any questions or concerns or if I may be of assistance in any
way, please contact us at our offices.
Brian K. McDaniel, Esq.
What a sexy retelling. So sexy. Sexy.