Too bad the Utah Highway Patrol fumbled an opportunity to come clean with citizens about the use of force during traffic stops -- specifically regarding the use of Tasers. Relations between law enforcement and the public were not enhanced when a Utah Highway Patrol trooper zapped a motorist.

In fact, the more this incident is discussed, the more questions arise about the behavior of the trooper. If you haven't done so already, we suggest that you view the video of the incident at YouTube.com. Search for "Taser" and it comes right up.

On Sept. 14, Trooper John Gardner pulled over an SUV driven by Jared Massey of Vernal. Massey argued that he couldn't have been speeding because he was not yet within the posted speed zone; the sign was still ahead. He asked how fast he was going -- a reasonable question -- and the trooper refused to answer.

Instead, Gardner ordered Massey out of the car for refusing to sign the ticket. Note that Massey was not required to sign the ticket; procedures allow for troopers to make a notation when a driver refuses to sign. Let a judge sort it out.

But Gardner, a veteran trooper, chose to escalate. It was completely unnecessary and unprofessional. He ordered Massey to sign the ticket, and when Massey refused he then ordered him out of the car. The message: If you don't sign you're going to jail.

It may be argued that a cop should be obeyed no matter what he says. But this is open to some doubt. It's like arguing, for example, that a military commander should always be obeyed without question. Yet the fact is that soldiers are not required to obey illegal orders. Authority should be obeyed when it is reasonable.

In this case, Trooper Gardner was out of line. Ordering someone out of a car expressly for refusing to sign a ticket should bring disciplinary action.

While we sympathize with cops who make a living confronting people in various moods, we don't grant them carte blanche. It's true that cops may encounter dangerous persons. But then rogue cops also crop up on occasion.

We recall Craig Peyer, the 13-year veteran California Highway Patrol trooper who would pull over female motorists at a remote freeway exit in a psychosexual power trip. When Cara Knott didn't cooperate, he strangled her and tossed her body off a bridge.

Peyer was so into his power that he even bragged, "There are two people you don't piss off in this world: God and a Highway Patrolman -- and not necessarily in that order." Those words could just as easily have come from the mouth of Trooper Gardner. Just watch the video.

If someone is drunk, we can understand the necessity to get him or her out of the vehicle for sake of public safety. But that wasn't the case here. This was all about a trivial refusal to sign.

No one should be forced to leave his vehicle unless there is some extraordinary cause that requires it. We strongly believe that a woman alone on a highway should stay inside her car if pulled over. She should open the window just enough to slide out her driver's license. And she should not be forced to sign the ticket if she doesn't want to.

Once Gardner forced Massey out of his vehicle, the man meandered around a bit trying to explain to the cop that he had not yet entered the speed zone. He felt unjustly treated. His actions didn't threaten Gardner's safety, only his ego. So he zaps the guy.

At a news conference last week the Utah Highway Patrol announced that the zapping was lawful and reasonable. That assessment is outrageous.

It is now alleged that Massey had his hand in his pocket, which supposedly increased Gardner's anxiety. How convenient. Isn't it interesting that the "hand in pocket" argument arose long after the fact. On the video Gardner shows no anxiety. If anything just the opposite: he's a strutting smart-aleck. When a fellow officer shows up on the video to ask what was going on, Gardner shows his attitude by saying that Massey "took a ride with the Taser." There is no mention of danger, no mention of a hand in a pocket, no show of anxiety whatsoever. The man is just plain cocky.

We think that anybody who watches the video will agree that there was no threat in evidence, and no worry, no alarm, no tension emanating from Trooper Gardner.

This motorist was just an ordinary yokel in an SUV with his pregnant wife and toddler. A veteran cop ought to be able to recognize that rather quickly.

Going further, it's not too far a stretch to wonder whether Trooper Gardner conducted an illegal warrantless search of the vehicle, as suggested in a comment on the Herald's online forum.

Here is the sequence of events:

After Gardner arrests Massey, he strolls to the passenger side of the vehicle where the wife is sitting. He asks her if she can drive, which any normal person in her position would understand as an expectation that she would take the car away. Then Gardner goes to the driver's side, opens the door and starts rummaging around in the vehicle.

He says, "There's nothing in here that I need to know about, is therefi" and then asks, "Do you want to go ahead and take possession of the vehiclefi" And of course she answers yes because a normal individual would conclude that she can certainly drive her own vehicle away from a traffic stop.

When any driver is pulled over by a cop, the vehicle passes temporarily into state control. It then passes back to the owner, often without comment. So when did control of the vehicle first pass back to Massey's wifefi A good lawyer could probably make a case that it passed to her before Gardner conducted his search on the driver's side. She was in possession, after all, by virtue of being inside the vehicle, and by virtue of being the owner. We know of no case -- when the owner remains in his vehicle -- in which a ticketing officer has mentioned anything about possession of the vehicle.

Under this analysis, Gardner's warrantless search was illegal. He had no probable cause, so far as we can tell, to look inside.

The Utah Highway Patrol should step up to the plate and be honest in assessing this incident. Saying that Gardner acted reasonably is a violation of common sense. As such, it undermines public confidence, which law enforcement cannot afford to lose. All police agencies should strive to avoid the perception that they'll close ranks around their fellow officers no matter how egregious the behavior.

Do you agree?