In January, Fred Smoot was arrested and charged with driving under the influence, but it was something found in the affadavit of one of the officers by Washingtonian Magazine that caused the most embarrassment for Smoot.
“During processing, in the service area, while handcuffed, the [defendant] peed his pants creating 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.”
Smoot’s lawyer, Bryan K. McDaniel, addressed that portion of the arrest in a statement to Washingtonian after the story broke.
“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).”
“First of all, I wanted to apologize to not only my family, my friends, and everybody in the D.C. area for just putting myself in that situation to begin with,” Smoot began. “We’ve pretty much dealt with the legal matters of it. It was more of a mishap of me stepping outside of the boundaries of how I spoke to this officer, and me and him basically, verbally got into it from the draw. That forced it to go in many, many different ways.
“And I’m also right now in the process of, like I said, I’ve already dealt with the legal part of it, so now, you know, if the civil moves on I would have to deal with it in that way,” he continued. “So I can’t really continue to speak on it as in-depth as I really want to. But you know at the end of the day, bad decision by me, you know, and I’m dealing with it right now, day to day.”
The radio duo asked Smoot to clarify his indication that there was a civil matter pending.
“That’s the part that now we’re dealing with now, civilly and everything from, you know, a lot of false stuff to even stuff being wrote on a regular sheet of paper,” he said, referring to his lawyer’s claim in the statement to Washingtonian. “And like I said, it goes a lot deeper than that, and that part I’m handling as we speak so I can’t really speak on it in depth. Yes, it was a lot of false information put in there.”
At least he didn’t call it “flagellant information.”