TexasCHLforum.com

For many in our society, the end justifies the means. I've encountered a couple police officers and deputies that believe if innocent citizen's rights have to be infringed upon occassionally so that they might discover a criminal or criminal activity, so be it. It's a small price to pay.

Needless to say, I disagree with this attitude. If you stop me for a broken taillight, then give me a ticket or warning for the broken tail light. If you happen to see something suspicious that leads you to believe there may be something criminal going on, then by all means, pursue it. Otherwise, don't stop me for the taillight with the expectation and hope that you will find something more. What happened to being presumed innocent until proven guilty or there is reasonable suspicion that the person is a criminal breaking other laws?

When I happen upon a police officer, I don't expect or hope to see donut crumbs on his or her shirt. However, if I happen to see them, I laugh to myself and think that figures. I also don't expect every LEO with which I come in contact to be an overzealous cop that is looking to flex his muscles and show just how much authority he has.

What part of the OP indicated/triggered this part of the law " reasonably believes it is necessary for the protection of the license holder, officer, or another individual."?

Why did the officer believe it was "necessary" to disarm the driver beyond having him get out of the car? It seems many overlook this important part of the law or am I not reading it properly? Where in the law does it state he can run it to see if it is stolen without probable cause or reasonable suspicion that it may be?

Just seems the officer went too far and overstepped his bound.