By Count Friedrich von Olsen
Normally, I rely upon three methods of stirring up information for this column. I might have my chauffer, Anthony, trot out the Bentley for a sojourn down the mountain so I can burn some shoe leather padding about – at my age I can no longer dash – in the halls of justice or administration or have a face-to-face meeting with a solicitor or official in the know of the various goings-on in this gigantic county. Or I will task my butler, Hudson, to troll the worldwide web for this tidbit or that, so I can then use that as the thread with which I might embroider my narrative. Or I might simply take up my place at my desk and then serve in the capacity of a mad dervish phone jockey and shake something or other loose from whoever it is who will stay on the phone with me long enough to make some headway…
This last weekend, however, I needed to do none of that. Rather, I merely had to wander off the grounds surrounding the chalet and step with my spindly legs the half mile or so to Arrowhead Resort, where the San Bernardino County’s Annual City County Conference was held…
For a time, what I encountered were presentations on mundane topics of no conceivable interest to anyone and I feared my hike had been for naught. I was on the verge of slipping into Bin 189 to order up a Bloody Mary to fortify myself  with the endurance to retrace my steps back to the chalet.  But then I heard something that caused my ears to prick up and provide me with the fodder to fill this column with something lively…
Being openly discussed was the latest connivance the bureaucrats in Sacramento have come up with to fleece the taxpaying residents of the Golden State. I give you, good reader, warning that this is going to outrage you, but please, do not cast away or tear up the Sentinel in disgust, but keep reading, as I am merely the messenger here, attempting to give you the low down on what elements of your own government are plotting and not in any way endorsing this larcenous scheme…
It seems that state officials do not believe the gas tax we Californians are paying is enough. Never mind that we are already hit with the highest such tax in all of the USA’s fifty states. More money is needed to construct roads and highways, build and repair bridges and plug some 3,750,000 potholes. How do they plan to do this? They want to charge you for every mile you drive. The figure I heard quoted was one-and-a-half cents per mile…
None of this is set in stone, of course, but apparently the idea is to try this out as some kind of a “pilot program,” presumably in some isolated area or maybe some backwater county, and see if it works. Once it is demonstrated on a smaller scale, it is to be put into effect statewide, state officials hope, by 2019…
There are two things at play here. The way this is going to be promoted is that this program will generate revenue for our ailing transportation system and will simply be a modest use fee to offset the wear and tear we all are responsible for as a result of our reliance on the internal combustion engine. The second goal behind this, one which will not get much emphasis I am willing to bet, is that it is aimed offsetting the anticipated losses the state will suffer as motor vehicles become more and more fuel efficient, burning less gasoline and diesel fuel, upon which the already excessive taxes are levied. In other words, no good deed goes unpunished. If I sell my Bentley and buy a Tesla, reducing my carbon footprint, the government will still get its pound of flesh…
I think this latest idea coming out of Sacramento is a bad one. I trust most of my readers have been following things over the last few years and are aware that our state capitol is dominated by Democrats. They hold the upper hand in the upper floor of the California Legislature – the State Senate – and in the lower floor of the legislature – the California Assembly. Our governor is also, alas, a Democrat. I am reminded of what General George Patton, truly one of the greatest Americans in history, said. “Politicians are the lowest form of life,” said the general. “And Democrats are the lowest form of politician.” I find it hard to disagree with that sentiment…
The problem these officious bureaucrats are going to have in enforcing this harebrained law is that they are going to have to track our vehicle use. And how are they going to do that? I suppose there will be more than one way. Perhaps each car will be outfitted with a device allowing the Department of Motor Vehicles to monitor each vehicle’s odometer. That would be one way. Or each car will be outfitted with global positioning devices, allowing our citizenry’s whereabouts to be constantly tracked and monitored…
It seems, though, this last option might not prove workable. It seems the U.S. Supreme Court might not allow the DMV to do that. This week, on Monday, the highest court of the land ruled, in the matter of Torrey Dale Grady v. North Carolina that the government’s wholesale use of global positioning devices or other space-age technologies to monitor its citizens, runs afoul of the Fourth Amendment, which protects Americans against unreasonable searches and seizures.
North Carolina officials had subjected Mr. Grady, a twice convicted sex offender, to a protocol in which he had to wear a global positions device at all times to the state could track his constant whereabouts. He challenged that as an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment, but North Carolina’s courts, including that state’s highest court, ruled that the tracker was no search at all and not unreasonable. But the Supreme Court rebuked North Carolina, summarizing that state’s position that “the state’s system of nonconsensual satellite-based monitoring does not entail a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.”  According to the U.S. Supreme Court, “That theory is inconsistent with this court’s precedents.” So, let me see if I have this straight…
According to the U.S. Supreme Court, even a convicted criminal cannot be subjected to having to wear or carry a global position signaling beacon or other form of monitoring device, knowingly or unknowingly, willingly or unwillingly, without there first being a warrant obtained to indicate there is probable cause for saddling that individual with such a device, i.e., grounds to believe he is about to commit an offense. How then does the state of California intend to affix on each of our cars a global position device or other type of electronic tracking device when there is no reasonable suspicion each and every one of us is engaged in some type of criminal activity that needs to be monitored and no court has issued warrants based on such findings? I would not sell the bureaucrats in Sacramento short, however, and perhaps, by 2019, they will come up with some way to finagle this…