Sheriff Conducts Civilian Baptism After Traffic Stop

Riley v. Hamilton County Government

In 2019, deputy sheriff Daniel Wilkey pulled Shandle Riley over in the driveway of her ex-mother-in-law. Riley confessed that she had marijuana in her bag and Wilkey proceeded to search her car. The sheriff handcuffed her and searched her twice. He then directed her to pull up her shirt and shake out her shirt and bra, in an effort to find more contraband. After finding nothing more than the initial amount of marijuana, Wilkey inquired if Riley was baptized. She said no, and the sheriff said that “God was talking to him.” He assured her that, if she got baptized, he would only write a citation and she would not be arrested. The sheriff also stated that he would speak on her behalf at court if she agreed to get baptized. Hoping to avoid jail time, Riley agreed. The two then entered the house to retrieve towels for the baptism. Then, Riley followed Wilkey in his cruiser to Soddy Lake for the ceremony. Wilkey stripped down to his underwear and a t-shirt and submerged Riley’s head into the water.

The constitutional question at hand is whether deputy sheriff Wilkey, as a public official, violated Riley’s First Amendment rights to Free Exercise as well as the Establishment Clause.

 As stated in Kentucky v. Graham, suits brought against local officers in their official capacities are treated “as suits against the government entity” so long as the entity receives notice and an opportunity to respond. In this case, Hamilton County received both notice and an opportunity to respond, so the claims against Wilkey are essentially claims against the County. As outlined in Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, the Establishment Clause provides that “the government may neither officially promote religion, nor harbor an official purpose to disapprove of a particular religion or of religion in general.” In this case, the state was deemed unconstitutional in its action to make a law specifically inhibiting the practice of a particular religion. However, Riley v. Hamilton Cnty. Government presents an issue with a government official promoting Christianity. If one utilizes the Lemon test, this case certainly demonstrates an unconstitutional Establishment. First, the baptism performed by Wilkey has no secular legislative purpose. Further, its primary effect both advances and inhibits religion. As, Wilkey acted to advance Christianity and infringe upon the religious freedom of Riley. Lastly, the baptism fosters an excessive government entanglement with religion as the sheriff acted as a religious official by performing the baptism under the authority of the government.

Another pertinent concept is the Free Exercise issue involved in this case. Wilkey used his authority as a government official, and more, a law enforcement officer, to incentivize Riley to participate in a baptism. One can argue that the threat of prison, and motive to avoid such, marks government coercion on behalf of the sheriff. This case reflects the same issues as those in Janny v. Gamez, in which a prison inmate was sent by his parole officer to live at a Christian-based shelter in Colorado. The court rejected Janny’s First Amendment claims on the grounds that there was no coercion by the state. I find a key difference in Riley v. Hamilton Cnty. Government to be that Wilkey, a government official, coerced a religious action with the threat of punishment. Wilkey stated that if Riley participated in the baptism, she would not face prison time. Additionally, the act of participating in the baptism presented a substantial burden to Riley. She was directed to retrieve towels and drive to a lake where she was submerged in the water by a sheriff. At the behest of the Wilkey, Riley participated in a Christian sacrament that one typically engages in at infancy. She stated that the act was about “power and control,” as she did not wish to participate but felt as though it was in her best interest to avoid being arrested.

As stated in Lee v. Weisman, “If citizens are subjected to state-sponsored religious exercises, the State disavows its own duty to guard and respect that sphere of inviolable conscience and belief which is the mark of a free people.” The sheriff directly violated separation of church and state in infringing upon Riley’s Free Exercise rights. He disregarded the plaintiff's freedom of belief and undoubtedly endorsed Christianity through the baptism. Any reasonable observer would certainly view this event as not only unconventional, but a clearly religious act that violates the separation of church and state.

It is quite difficult to argue that Wilkey's actions were not unconstitutional. However, much of this case is based on the word of Riley. Despite the camera footage of the actual baptism, one can argue that this was not Wilkey's coercion but Riley's request. This could potentially rule out Free Exercise claims but would leave the issue of establishment.

This is a unique case, as there is ongoing legal suit due to delays from the Coronavirus pandemic. Moreover, just two days ago, Riley was found deceased in a residence in Soddy Daisy, Tennessee. The cause of death is currently unknown, but an autopsy is being conducted as to rule out foul play. It is unclear whether the case will continue to be prosecuted, however, it is speculated that her two surviving children may take on the suit. Ultimately, I agree with the lower court’s ruling that Riley’s First Amendment Right to Free Exercise was violated and that Wilkey unlawfully performed a religious ceremony as an official of the state, marking an unconstitutional establishment.