Court Opinion

ID: 9819218
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 06:20:24.41899+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:38:29.514183
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE HOLDRIDGE, dissenting. I respectfully dissent from the majority’s holding that a license is not required at the time of bidding. The Private Detective, Private Alarm, Private Security and Locksmith Act (the Act) makes it unlawful for a contractor “to act as a *** private alarm contractor” if not licensed to do so. (Emphasis added.) 225 ILCS 446/15(b) (West 1996). A “private alarm contractor” is one who engages in a business that “sells” alarm systems. 225 ILCS 446/5 (West 1996). As the majority points out, when construing the language of a statute, the court should consider the plain and ordinary meaning of the statute’s language in the overall context of its reason and necessity and its stated purpose. Illinois Bell Telephone Co. v. Illinois Commerce Comm’n, 282 Ill. App. 3d 672 (1996). In this matter, the stated purpose of the Act is to protect public health, safety and welfare by regulating persons and businesses engaged in the activities covered under the Act. Under the plain and ordinary meaning to be given to the terms used in the statute, any act done by one engaging in the business of selling alarm systems would come under the license requirements of the Act. Here, ISI accepted an invitation to submit a bid to sell Will County an alarm system for its new juvenile justice center. At the moment that ISI submitted a bid to the Commission, it was offering to sell an alarm system and was thus acting as a private alarm contractor. The purpose of the Act, protection of the public, therefore clearly prohibits any such actions by a private alarm contractor unless the contractor is licensed. If this were not the case, the public would not be protected from unscrupulous or unqualified vendors during the crucial first step in the vending process, the solicitation and reception of bids. I also disagree with the majority’s conclusion that the absence of a specific reference to the term “bidding” in our statute, compared to the presence of that terminology in a similar Arizona statute, is dis-positive in this case. The plain meaning of the words in our statute is quite clear without the need to resort to comparisons to statutes from other jurisdictions. I believe the statute at issue in this matter clearly requires that a contractor possess a license before it acts in any manner as a private alarm contractor and I would reverse the trial court on that basis. As I would reverse the trial court as a matter of law, I would not reach the issue of whether the commission abused its discretion in finding that ISI was the lowest responsible bidder. For the foregoing reasons, I would reverse the trial court’s determination that a license is not required at the time of bidding and I would remand for entry of a judgment for the plaintiff. I dissent on that basis.