RW>He would have PC, the fact that I am carrying an
  >unidentified medication.
Not neccessarily; and especially not in states that do not require
a label on medications.
RW>But that's not the point.  All charges maybe dropped
  >innocence. not the point.  All charges maybe dropped
  >but I would still be charged or at least 'arrested' by
  >the officer because he would have no choice because of
  >the ZT rules.  It would then be up to me to PROVE my
  >innocence.
ÿ
ZT does not mean that the requirement for probable cause is
suspended.  As for you having to "Prove" your innocence that is
not the way it works.  The burden of proof is on the state and
the officer.
RW>Now if I had been in a weapons ZT area I would have
  >been arrested, charged and convicted and would have
  >never passed, or had a he!! of a time, passing any type
  >of security clearance.  As it was I "got away" with two
  >clear violations; speeding and the weapon charge.
OK, you had an officer in a good mood who cut you a break; but
obviously you WERE in violation of the law, ZT or no ZT.
RW>Did the trooper make a bad decision and endanger the
  >public by letting me go?  Would have things turned out
  >better if the trooper had no choice but to arrest me
  >because some politicians wanted to make PR points by
  >having a ZT on crimes involving weapons?
If the area you were in was a problem area as far as speeding or
weapons violations, I fail to see anything wrong with law enforcement
concentrating on violations in that area.  You have heard of bad luck
haven't you Rich? 
RW>One of my biggest complaints about ZT policies is the
  >fact that they remove the enforcer of the rules from
  >the system.
Please elaborate on what you mean, Rich.
CHARLES HUNTER
 * 1st 2.00 #9124 * Math Problems? Call 1-800-[(10x)(13i).]-[sin(xy)/2.362x].
--- QScan/PCB v1.19b / 01-0671
---------------