website_title

A Tennessee church deacon who recently sued the sheriff’s department is now facing felony theft charges of his own.

Daniel Scott Pate, a deacon at Old Horseshoe Freewill Baptist Church in Elizabethton, was arrested on October 28 on allegations that he pocketed tens of thousands of dollars for work he never began, just weeks after filing a federal lawsuit accusing local law enforcement of overreach inside a house of worship, as The Christian Post reports.

Authorities allege Pate accepted roughly $30,000 earlier this year for remodeling projects that remained untouched, triggering charges of theft between $10,000 and $60,000 under Tennessee law.

Federal Civil Rights Lawsuit Filed by Church Leaders

In September, Pate and the church’s pastor, Rick Miller, filed a complaint in U.S. District Court targeting the Carter County Sheriff's Department and Sheriff Mike Fraley himself. The suit says deputies entered the church without a warrant during a prayer service last year—allegedly at the urging of former church members unhappy with internal decisions after a leadership change.

The civil filing charges the department with violations of First and Fourth Amendment rights, civil conspiracy, and obstruction of worship. According to the church leaders, deputies attempted to involve themselves in internal church matters that had already been resolved by the congregation.

“The deputies were going to force a vote between former church members and the current church members when the matter had already been settled,” the lawsuit contends. The claim paints a disturbing picture of governmental intrusion into sanctuary affairs—something Americans on both sides of the aisle should be able to agree is a step too far.

Incident at Church Followed by Arrest of Plaintiff

During the warrantless entry, tensions escalated until Pate reportedly set off the building's alarm and locked the doors, prompting congregants and deputies alike to depart. Church services were later suspended due to safety concerns, and church leaders say they were watched by law enforcement for some time afterward.

Just one month after filing suit, Pate found himself on the other end of the law. Arrested and booked at Carter County Jail, he posted $10,000 bond and awaits a court hearing date to answer to the theft charges.

The optics, some observers note, are hard to ignore. One month, a church deacon sues the sheriff for violating constitutional rights. Next, he’s charged with a felony crime tied to private business dealings.

Sheriff Responds to Litigation and Charges

Sheriff Mike Fraley gave a cautious public response to the suit when it was first filed in September, saying, “We are aware there are serious concerns in the community regarding this potential lawsuit, and that is rightly so."

He continued, “The allegations contained in these documents are extremely serious, and we are taking them very seriously.” That level of tone rarely surfaces unless a department is bracing for scrutiny.

Still, Fraley was careful not to make legal admissions, noting that, "until we have been officially served, we cannot comment on what is, at this point, a non-event." That framing reveals either bureaucratic caution or an attempt to downplay an accusation that strikes at the heart of constitutional protections.

Local Questions Surround Both Church and Court

The convergence of these criminal charges against a man actively pursuing a civil claim against the sheriff's office has raised more than a few eyebrows across Carter County. It's not every day a lawsuit invokes the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and then one of the plaintiffs is hauled off to jail under a cloud of financial misconduct.

According to the lawsuit, the church had internally handled the matter involving former members following the exit of a previous pastor. The notion that outside authorities thought themselves fit to reverse or interfere with a church’s internal vote should concern anyone who values the difference between church and state.

If substantiated, the case against Pate will rightly proceed through the courts. But the timing and backdrop—one involving government intrusion into a church and the other a private individual facing serious accusations—speak to a broader climate where rule-of-law and selective enforcement often blur.

Legal Road Ahead Could Be Contentious

Pate’s theft case remains completely separate from the civil allegations leveled against the sheriff’s office. But the public will rightly scrutinize both stories, especially when one defendant is also accusing the authorities of constitutional violations under federal law.

Whether the charges against Pate stick is for the courts to decide. But one thing is clear: when law enforcement walks into a church without a warrant to settle what ought to be an internal matter, people notice—and they push back.

We'll see which side of justice ultimately prevails. But in an age when government seems eager to insert itself into every corner of life, this case serves as a vivid reminder: the Constitution isn’t just a suggestion. It’s a line in the sand.