I don't think the officer was in the wrong here. The law had changed, but he acted on something that was still illegal under the new law: not having commercial insurance. He was right, the Uber driver was violating the law. Its to his credit that he resolved the uncertainty, in the moment, in their favor.

That is actually a public interest issue. If an Uber driver hits you, and his personal car insurance doesn't cover it because it was commercial use, he can just declare bankruptcy and leave you stuck with the bill. This is why states require you to have insurance before driving.

Indeed, the irony of the article is that the police officer is the one who had the author's interest at heart. When a driver gets into an accident and a passenger is injured, the driver's insurance pays for the passengers's medical expenses. If the Uber driver's insurance denies the claim because he was engaged in commercial use (and probably lying about things like annual mileage and purpose of the vehicle), then the author is up shit creek.