P. 1
Smoot Lawyer

Smoot Lawyer

|Views: 6|Likes:
Published by Deadspin
Smoot lawyer
Smoot lawyer

More info:

Published by: Deadspin on Jan 25, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less






1025 First Street, S.E. Penthouse 13 | Washington, DC 20003 | T 202.331.0793 | F 202.331.7004 McDaniel & Asso. P.A | bkmassociates@aol.com Brian K. McDaniel Direct 301.996.6904

January 25, 2013 Via Electronic Mailing RE. 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.

Respectfully, /s/ Brian K. McDaniel, Esq.

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->