Hotz , 51 Ill. Such legislation differs from "local laws" because it is not limited to a geographical portion of the State. Special legislation differs from a violation of equal protection in that the latter consists of arbitrary and invidious discrimination against a person or a class of persons. It results from the governmental withholding of a right, privilege or benefit from a person or a class of persons without a reasonable basis or, where a fundamental right or suspect classification is involved, a compelling State interest for doing so.
Whether a law is attacked as special legislation or as violative of equal protection, it is still the duty of the courts to decide whether the classification is unreasonable in that it preferentially and arbitrarily includes a class special legislation to the exclusion of all others, or improperly denies a benefit to a class equal protection.
See Anderson v. Wagner , 79 Ill. While certain pieces of legislation may be attacked as both special legislation and violative of equal protection since they confer a benefit on one class while denying a benefit to another, there will be many cases where a benefit is conferred on one class to which no other class has a right.
In those cases, legislation would be attacked as special legislation but not as violative of equal protection. The General Assembly has made a legislative judgment that to assure reasonably reliable and consistent detection-of-deception examinations, recordings of cardiovascular and respiratory patterns, at the least, are needed. While the ability and experience of each examiner may vary, the minimum objective standard will remain uniform. This case is distinguishable from People v.
Schaeffer , Ill. Those acts arbitrarily exempted graduates of Illinois medical schools from taking a licensing examination, while requiring osteopaths who had studied the subjects necessary to be an osteopath in a college or hospital nonetheless to graduate from a medical school and pass a licensing examination.
The court said: "This statute therefore tends to deprive the osteopaths of their constitutional right to practice surgery, who are, so far as this record shows, just as efficient and as well prepared by college and hospital training to practice surgery as are the physicians of the medical schools. The act is therefore void as to such physicians so deprived. The comparison between osteopaths and users of the PSE is not parallel.
There is still enough doubt about the reliability of detection-of-deception instruments, and the varying expertise of those who use them, to justify the General Assembly's decision to set minimum standards which prefer one instrument over another. As the appellate court correctly pointed out, the General Assembly cast some doubt on the reliability of deception-detection instruments when it forbade the use of the results of any lie-detection device in criminal trials Ill.
See Illinois Polygraph Society v. Pellicano , 78 Ill. Section 3 of the Act, since it is reasonable, does not confer a monopoly upon licensed examiners. Also, by establishing a minimum standard of reliability, section 3 creates a classification that is reasonably related to the protection of the public health, safety and welfare. Section 3 is general and not special legislation. We turn now to a discussion of whether the remainder of the Act is special legislation.
The defendant contends that the Act bestows an exclusive privilege upon licensed examiners and arbitrarily and unreasonably excludes persons from becoming licensed under the Act. The Act and the regulations promulgated thereunder are designed to train and license detection-of-deception examiners since that occupation has been legislatively determined to affect the public health, safety and welfare.
Section 12 of the Act specifies that the Department shall issue an internship license to a trainee upon application and payment of the required fee to the Department, and that such a license is valid for 12 months but may be extended up to another 12 months for good cause shown. To become fully licensed as an examiner an intern must study the detection of deception and administer detection-of-deception examinations under the personal supervision and control of an examiner in accordance with a course of study prescribed by the Department at the commencement of the internship.
Also, an intern must satisfactorily complete at least six months of such training Ill. The license is issued by the Department upon application by the intern and after the Department is supplied with "such information as in the judgment of the Department will enable [it] to pass on the qualifications of the applicant for a license. Further, section 7 of the Act authorizes the creation of the Detection of Deception Examiner Committee.
It reads:. In People v. It was held there that regulations which authorized the purported alternative to apprenticeship of attending an educational institution were neither reasonably related to gaining expertise in plumbing nor sufficiently specific to protect the public health or adequately inform a potential licensee of the studies needed to become a plumber.
The alternative to a five-year apprenticeship was thus illusory, and the apprentice provision of the law was found to confer upon licensed plumbers a monopolistic right to instruct and to control entry into the trade. In People ex rel. Chicago Dental Society v. Dental Laboratories, Inc. The provision most sharply disputed stated that only persons employed or engaged by licensed dentists could construct or repair, extra-orally, dentures, bridges or other replacements for teeth or parts of teeth.
This court distinguished that statute from the plumbing license laws previously invalidated in People v. Brown , Ill. Binks , Ill. The court stated in A. Dental Laboratories:. Taking the foregoing principles into account, we conclude that the present act, as implemented, is constitutional.
Under the express terms of the Act, any person may obtain an internship license simply by applying and paying the required fee Ill. No allegation has been made, and we refuse to assume without proof, that instruction by licensed examiners is not available, or is arbitrarily withheld. There is no requirement under the Act that an intern must be employed for a period of years, as required under the invalid plumbing license laws, before he may become a licensed examiner.
Instead, the intern need only complete clock hours of study which is prescribed by departmental regulations. Therefore, licensed examiners do not possess a monopolistic right to instruct prospective licensees. While it is true, as argued by the defendant, that the Act does not contain an express requirement that examinations be conducted on a regular basis, that omission does not exclusively empower licensed examiners to control entry to the trade.
Previously, Mr. Kelmer was elected to the Board of Directors in and was also elected and has served as the Vice-President and Chairman of the Legislative Committee in Kelmer is also qualified to conduct examinations in Britain, Europe and the Middle East and has completed advanced interview and interrogation training at a renowned institute.
Kelmer was appointed as the liaison between the polygraph examiners of a foreign country and their United States counterparts. Kelmer was invited to lecture in the Middle East and received a special award by the examiners of a foreign country for his knowledge and expertise. You will find our rates to be among the most reasonable in the industry.
Contact us to schedule an appointment with our polygraph examiner or to find out more about our polygraph services. Home Polygraph Testing Contact.
0コメント