Patrick Mahomes’ dad missed drug test 2 days after Kansas city chiefs lost in super bowl and now…

Patrick Mahomes’ dad missed drug test 2 days after Kansas city chiefs lost in super bowl and now…

Patrick Mahomes’ father, Pat Mahomes Sr., failed to show up for a drug test, as ordered by the court, two days after the Super Bowl, In Touch can exclusively report.

According to court documents obtained by In Touch, Pat Sr.’s community supervision officer filed a status report on Thursday, February 13, as part of his DWI case.

The report said Pat Sr., 54, was granted permission to travel to New Orleans, Louisiana, from February 7 through February 10.

The Super Bowl game between the Kansas City Chiefs and the Philadelphia Eagles went down on February 9. Pat Sr. was instructed to submit to a urine test on February 11, but he failed to do so.

The report said he showed up the following day on February 12 to submit to a urine test, which came back negative.

“In addition, it was brought to this officer’s attention that [Pat Sr.] was seen on video getting into an altercation on Bourbon Street during approved travel,” the report read.

As In Touch previously reported, Pat Sr. was caught on camera getting into a verbal altercation with former MLB pitcher John Rocker during Super Bowl weekend.

Many questioned whether the argument was real or staged.

In the status report, the community supervision officer said an admin hearing was held to “admonish the defendant regarding the missed urinalysis and altercation.”

Patrick Sr. was released on $100,000 bond. In August 2024, he pleaded not guilty to a felony driving while intoxicated charge.

The judge sentenced Pat Sr. to five-year probation, 160 hours of community service, alcohol classes and forced him to install an interlock device in his car. An interlock device requires a party to blow into the device to have their blood alcohol level tested before their car starts.

In the recent motion, the District Attorney and community supervision officer wrote, “Patrick Mahomes … due to the defendant’s extensive travel outside of Smith County for sports events it’s requested the defendant have an additional portable alcohol monitoring device when he’s not using his vehicle.” The D.A. and community supervision officer asked that Patrick be forced to wear a SCRAM alcohol monitoring bracelet.

They asked that a provision be added to his sentence reading, “At your own expense, immediately submit to the SCRAM Bracelet Alcohol Monitoring Program, and directed by your Supervision Officer and continue use of said device until released by the court, and do not attempt to remove, circumvent or tamper with the monitoring unit or any associated equipment and follow all rules and regulations of said monitoring program.

A judge has yet to rule on the matter.