Sheriff Donald F Eslinger
Skip Navigation Links


Casselberry Police Detective Robert Martin

&The Fourth Amendment

We at are provided with tips from various sources. With each tip we proceed as if everyone involved is a liar. Our job is to find documents, proof and evidence to verify who is telling the truth. And then to expose corruption no matter who is involved.

Our history is full of not so nice people who due to their encounters with law enforcement have set established laws that protect our Constitutional Rights. In law enforcement the names Miranda vs. Arizona, Escabido vs. Illinois and Terry vs. Ohio are well known. While no law abiding person would defend the actions of these individuals it is because of their crimes and through the courts that guidelines have been established which provide our Law Enforcement officers with rules to operate within.

There has to be order and set standards which protect each of us from those who would violate our constitutionally protected rights. Sometimes these violations are intentional and at other times they are the result of ignorance or lack of self control. We at believe that such is the case in this incident.

Recently we received a copy of a video tape which was made on February 9, 2012. (1) As a result of a little leg work the background as to how a Casselberry Police Detective named Robert Martin was captured on video was discovered. On January 26, 2012 a crime was committed against a woman. The nature of the allegation was a violation of Florida State Statute 810.02, Burglary with battery to an occupied conveyance (car). Case Number 201220000187.

In a nut shell an unidentified white male followed a car full of people out of his neighborhood who were soliciting. What exactly happened in the neighborhood has yet to be revealed. Needless to say the conflict left the neighborhood and ended up within the city limits of Casselberry Florida. Words were exchanged and the white male reached into the vehicle which was driven by this female. The white male is alleged to have reached into the car, grabbed a cell phone from the female and scratched the female in the process. While some might think this is no big deal, we can assure you that it is. A vehicle is a lot like your home and we as Citizens are protected while in our homes and cars.

And this is how Detective Robert Martin entered our story. On February 7, 2012, Detective Martin put together a photo lineup containing the photos of six white males. The victim was unable to pick out the suspect. But she did pick out the wrong person. Two days later Det. Martin located what he believed to be the involved vehicle. In law an officer has the right and authority to do what is known as a "KNOCK & TALK".

This means that the officer can walk directly to your front door and attempt to engage in conversation with the occupants of the residence. Now if the resident has committed a crime and chooses to invite the officer inside or talk to the officer then the officer can use the information obtained against the person or persons within the house. In the case of this encounter the officer came across an individual for whatever reason knew his rights and was making sure the officer knew that he knew what those rights were.

The officer appears to know that he (the officer) is being video recorded as depicted in the officer turning his back to the person filming the officer. As a side note, not a good position to place yourself in when confronting a possible suspect to the crime of burglary and battery to an occupied conveyance. But maybe this is some new police officer safety tactic. We would submit that the officer appears not to want to be video recorded. But this is only our opinion.

What conversation took place prior to the recording started is unknown. Only two people can tell us the rest of this story and we doubt that either person will talk. Very soon into the conversation the officer lost control. The officer is no longer asking questions but begins answering questions. For the most part the answers that the officer provided were truthful. Remember the officer is there for a lawful purpose. He is looking for a bad guy and hopes that he gets the probable cause needed to arrest the person who committed the crime. But the officer ran into a problem.

An informed, polite and respectful individual who knew his rights. Somewhere along the line the tables turned. The individual made the officer admit that the officer did not have the identity of the suspect nor did the officer know who he was speaking with. The officer did not have a warrant for the arrest of the individual nor a criminal indictment. The individual advised the officer that he would provide the driver of the involved vehicle with Detective Martins name.

And now is where the officer stepped across the line. The individual requested the officer to leave his private property and the officer acknowledged that he heard the individual to depart and at that time the officer informed the individual that he (the officer) had the right to be there. The individual again asked the officer to leave his private property and even advises the officer that he is violating his fourth amendment rights. Again the officer advises he is NOT LEAVING!

Then we witness the officer just standing there and for some reason the officer thinks that it would be a good idea to walk toward the residence and attempt to take a photograph of the individual. The officer even advises that he wants to take a photo to do a photo lineup. The person operating the video backs away at which time the final statement of the officer is heard.

"Not so fun now is it?" Rather childish, in our opinion.

On February 9, 2012, Detective Martin put together a second photo lineup but this time containing the photo of the white male which had photographed him earlier. Once again the victim picked the wrong man. The victim finally admitted that she could not identify the suspect.

On October 1, 2013, a public records request was made of the incident report. Photo lineup # 2 was located. No record of photo lineup # 1 could be located at the time of this article.

Remember both photo lineups are evidence to support the fact that the white male who video taped Detective Martin was not the suspect as far as the victim could identify. The case was classified as inactive due to the victim being unable to identify the white male.

So at what point did the "Knock & Talk" get out of control? Just what rights do we as Citizens have in our own homes? Does the fourth amendment mean anything anymore? Do we have the right to demand law enforcement to get off of our property? When we demand someone to leave just how long are they permitted to refuse our request, demand, and instruction? At what point does trespass after warning become a crime when done by a law enforcement officer? And what happens when the person who is committing the trespass after warning is armed with a firearm?

This story does not attempt to touch on the issue IF the individual within the residence committed the crimes which Detective Martin was investigating. That is for law enforcement to prove, the office of the State Attorney to charge and either a Judge or Jury to hear the evidence and render a verdict. We are all to be viewed as innocent until proven guilty. The last time we checked we are living in the United States of America and not some third world country. We do not live under a dictator nor a king and we are a Nation of Laws and not of men.

We do not live in a Country which permits anyone sworn to uphold our laws to use their authority to violate our Constitutionally protected rights, or do we?


  1. You tube video.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing"
-Edmund Burke