examination is the specific hearing where a judge determines whether the state's evidence shows specific probable cause to prosecute the defending since mr smith did not receive a preliminary examination this court should  dollar fee against him statues are to be enforced so that the plain meaning within the statute is given it's common in ordinary meaning the common ordinary meaning of a preliminary examination cannot be clear although it is not defined explicitly in the counties code the legislature has defined a preliminary examination in the court of criminal procedure specifically section five one zero nine three of article one zero nine of the code defines this hearing as the hearing where a judge determines whether it shall hold the defendant to answer to the court if from the evidence it appears there is probable cause to believe that an offense has been committed by that offended it further describes that witnesses will be examined at this hearing and that the defendant will testify at the hearing even beyond criminal procedure a preliminary examination is the specific hearing where judge determines whether probable cause exists to prosecute that offended when interpret ing statutes statutes that govern the same subject matter and contain the same word should be given the same definition the code of criminal procedure is the source of all criminal proceedings therefore the definition of a preliminary examination within those proceedings should be the same definition that is governed by the county's code or that is provided in the count hundred nine but are you saying i may be wrong on that point and if i am wrong i would say that this is where preliminary examination this comes in as the term of art these hearings have always been referenced as a preliminary examination before and after the code of criminal procedure was a diary examination luminary it is often you synonymously course refer to it as a preliminary hearing and in fact the legislature does as well specifically will relate when talking about one authors of treatise is that explain the illinois criminal procedure will also note that the hearing at which a judge determines whether probable cause to prosecute the defendant exists is labeled as a preliminary examination and alan only and even outside of illinois as we've explained in th briefs every state that uses the term preliminary examination and those that use the term for momentary hearing know that these hearings are synonymous and they are the probable cause hearing where a judge determines if the evidence is sufficient to prosecute the defendant so when the legislature chose this specific term which is defined by the legislature and the court of criminal procedure and used consistently as a plain meaning or as a legal term of art in illinois and outside of illinois it must have intended to reference a specific criminal preliminary examination the state notes that it would be preliminary examination should not be given its common meaning in the counties code because of this language held to be over cognizance bus according to the state with this language the legislature must have been intending to reference the initial presentment of a defendant under section one and when it is true that the defendant is first admitted to be over cognizance at this initial presentment proceeding it is also true that the decision on whether to continue to hold the defendant on bail or a cognizance is made at the preliminary examination section one zero nine three describes that if the judge does not find probable cause it shall discharge the defendant but if it if the judge does find probable cause it shall hold the defendant to answer to the court innocence it would also be illogical to state that the legislature was actually intending to reference the presentment proceeding by using the term preliminary examination because it is at the present proceeding that the preliminary examination  scheduled had the legislature intended to reference this hearing any phrase other than the term preliminary examination given that it is defined in the same article as a different perceiving entirely would have worked instead the enforcing the terms it reinforcing the statute as it is written the state also notes that as a matter of policy to limit the definition of preliminary examination to its common meaning would not reimburse states attorneys for their involvement at this presentment proceeding of course the plain language of the statute only authorizes the fia preliminary examinations and that must be what controls it is also perfectly consistent with the purpose of the county's code to collect the fee at the preliminary examination the state's attorney has substantial involvement in a preliminary examination this is the one hearing that is given space if it specifically for a particular defended the state must present evidence or witnesses the defendant appears with his counsel at these hearings and test that evidence and also present his own evidence that's a substantial amount of involvement is comes with the state's attorney at this hearing so where the purpose of the of the county's code as the parties agree is to reimburse states attorney for their involvement in criminal proceedings it is logical that the legislature would choose to reimburse states attorneys for their involvement in this proceeding on the other hand states attorneys have little to minimal involvement at present and proceedings requires that law enforcement bring defendants promptly before a judge without unnecessary delay and further at this hearing which is a non adversarial proceeding unlike the preliminary examination every task required to be performed is performed by the judge and not the state's attorney the judge admits the defendant to be able the judge reads the charges the judge appoints counsel if necessary and the judge schedules the actual preliminary examination th funds from that regard i'm not certain why that would be the case but i do know it's very few cases where defendants are not held to any terms of bail i don't know why the legislature would have done that but good morning i'm janet mahoney here on behalf of the people the state of illinois the language not hell to pay all of her cognizance actually supports the state's position that this is for a bail hearing the twenty dollars is to be a sassed at the bail hearing the judge determines that there's probable cause to detain and bail is assigned whether it be a signature bond a cash and a percentage bond the bail the bail itself whether you're allowed to go come and go is not bail has been assigned now if the judge determines that there isn't probable cause to taint then you're not held on bail and you're free to go it actually supports the position that the twenty dollars should be assessed for the bail hearing a bail hearing is required in every single case a planetary hearing is not the state has the option to charge by indictment if that the goal is to compensate the state for proceedings that they must engage and it makes sense that the twenty dollars should be assessed for the bail hearing in addition the legislature chose to use the term how to bail reconnaissance that she not be rendered meaningless by saying that it only applies to better reserved for you with respect to what portion of the of one hundred nine applies for purposes of this argument with preliminary examination but the question does remain you contend that when the legislature bail provision instead of the more specific section one zero nine three which opposing counsel corrected me that they're relying on which is also in title preliminary examination right correct or in article one  and it section numbering system was added as part of the code of criminal procedure one nine hundred sixty three but the fine provision was in effect long before that and was originally part of act in relation to fees and selves so my question which i as i said is better reserved for you than opposing counsel is how can the legislature have been referring to earlier one o nine as a whole when that article was not even in existence when the legislature and  to go back and review and they kept this language in there on perhaps a different form was an active prior to the criminal call but i believe the form that it exists now was introduced in one nine hundred ninety one ok but i also do agree that the terms are practitioners when they hear when they would hear about luminary family nation they would think larry not necessarily in fact this court referred to the nine dash one as a policeman re examination and people court itself has used the term plenary examination to refer to something other than a as a practical matter  examination for twice against the same defendant rights for a bail hearing and watch for probable cause as a practical manner it certainly is a possibility because the statute as it's written states because at that probable cause to detain determination the bail hearing the court can find that we don't have probable cause did it detain and send the defendant on his way so he is not held to bail so you could read it that way or you could also really read it as plenary examinations as referring to the entire article one zero nine and refrain to bail hearings in the probable cause to detain as well as what's commonly known particular section they included a reference to a particular section here there is not a limitation to a peak particular section of article one hundred nine they refer to it as a whole as a plenary as plenty examination do you respond to posing counsel's argument that when you look at that section of the all of all of them seem to involve all the all of them seem to involves a good significant work on the part examination of a party bound over to keep the peace that's not a very involved proceeding i believe it's for things that we we have to do things that must be done a plenary hearing is not a requirement it's a way of charging but it's not the only way of charging a bail hearing is required and therefore the state should be compensated for things that they are required to do this position you need we need look at the co these terms meaningless it says for each defendant held to bail reconnaissance which means that the fed has had state references that bail hearings are required for every single defended that is why the reason why the fact that preliminary examination is important is since b l hearings are given for every single defendant the legislature could have simply said for legislature was clearly intending to reference this hearing in the code additionally although the article is entitled preliminary examination what this court held in ballard was that the purpose of the entire article is to ensure all rights inherent in a preliminary examination section one hundred three specifically defines the preliminary examination and the other sections within that article work to ensure those rights together section one on one three point one provides the dates by which a preliminary examination must occur in those states are triggered by the president hearing so it makes sense that the legislature included all of these statutes or sections within one article entitled preliminary examination but then still section four two zero one two thousand two point one eight contain any reference to any codes it is only in subsection b that the legislature contains a reference to any other code definition and notably those fees do not go to the to the code it must be a definition somewhere the code of criminal procedure defines criminal procedures and it defines a preliminary examination as a probable cause hearing before a judge so we would submit that the plain language is very clear that the