ADVERTISEMENT

Fred Smoot's attorney says detail about urinating is not true

  • Blog Post by: Michael Rand
  • January 25, 2013 - 3:10 PM

Just received an e-mail from Brian K. McDaniel, attorney for Fred Smoot, who wanted to clear up a few things pertaining to a report circulating yesterday. Just to be safe, we called McDaniel to make sure the e-mail was legit. The number he gave us matched the number on that link, and he answered. We had a polite conversation where he re-asserted the message from the e-mail and this: "Mr. Smoot denies going to the bathroom on himself."

Here are the key components from his e-mail:

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.

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.

So there you have it.
 

© 2014 Star Tribune