Lawyer: Fred Smoot Did Not Urinate on Himself During DUI Arrest

The former Redskin’s attorney, Brian K. McDaniel, calls the allegation “plainly false.”

Written by Luke Mullins | Published on January 25, 2013

The affidavit. Click to see a larger version.

The attorney representing
Fred Smoot says the former Washington Redskins cornerback did not urinate on himself after his
recent arrest for driving under the influence, but was instead the target of a false
claim intended to “embarrass” Smoot and “sensationalize” his arrest.

The Washingtonian on Thursday broke the news that Smoot was arrested on December 30 and charged with
driving under the influence of alcohol or a drug and operating while impaired. Smoot
pleaded not guilty to the charges.

Phone calls to Smoot’s lawyer,
Brian K. McDaniel, in advance of publication were not returned.

According to the affidavit of US Capitol Police officer
Seth Carll, Smoot “peed his pants” while being processed at the police station. The urine created
“a puddle on the floor,” Carll said in the affidavit. “[A police officer] witnessed
the urine running down his pant leg and onto the floor. [Smoot] did not express that
he had to use the restroom.”

But in a written statement to
The Washingtonian Friday, McDaniel called parts of the affidavit “plainly erroneous and factually unsupported.”

McDaniel said in his statement: “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.”

Officer Shennell Antrobus, the US Capitol Police’s public information officer, said this afternoon, “The department stands behind the arrest made by Officer Carll. We will not comment any further pending the adjudication of the case.”

According to Carll’s affidavit, Smoot appeared angry during the traffic stop, and
when asked why, Smoot responded that “he got into it with his girl at the club.”

McDaniel also disputed this point. “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,” McDaniel said in his statement.

Questions or comments? You can reach us on Twitter, via e-mail, or by contacting the author directly:

Luke Mullins

Senior Writer

Luke Mullins is a senior writer at Washingtonian magazine focusing on the people and institutions that control the city’s levers of power. He has written about the Koch Brothers’ attempt to take over The Cato Institute, David Gregory’s ouster as moderator of NBC’s Meet the Press, the collapse of Washington’s Metro system, and the conflict that split apart the founders of Politico.