Particular attention is given to the State's need to elect between proving reasonable suspicion or showing license check authority to justify a vehicle stop; methods of proving ulterior police motives in a license check stop; possible misapplication of article 6687b, section 13 (Vernon 1977), allowing for license check stops; and the growing case for judicial elimination of random license check authority. The Fatimi decision caused the prosecutor to have to elect at the pretrial stage between approaching a vehicle stop as one based on specific facts amounting to reasonable suspicion (as outlined in Talbert v. State) or as a random license check stop authorized by Fatemi. After Fatemi, once the State advances the license check justification; proof of any other police motive for a stop negates the license check authority. Both Hall v. State and Faulkner v. State advance the rule that the court will invalidate a license check stop that was made for some reason other than to check a vehicle operator's license. If the officer admits in court to stopping the vehicle for any reason other than a random license check, the stop is illegal. The Fatemi decision requires that a defendant show only that the police had a motive in stopping the vehicle that was in addition to the license check. In any defense to uncover motives for stopping a vehicle other than or in addition to a license check, it is important to develop fully the events preceding, during, and following the vehicle stop. A checklist is provided for the development of such a defense. Notes are provided.