La Salle County judges were fed up. They had granted suspects pre-trial release only to see defendants skip court dates and tamper with their GPS ankle bracelets.

So the judges came up with a solution. The SAFE-T Act gives judges the right to hand down 30-day sanctions – that is, jail sentences for violations of release– so why not hand down 30 days for each violation?

A drug suspect who was slapped with 90 days for multiple violations -- nearly 300 of them -- appealed and won. An appeals court rejected the idea of multiple sanctions, but that ruling appears ripe for review.

Wednesday, the Third District Appellate Court handed down a ruling that effectively caps jail time for pre-trial violations at 30 days – even when a defendant has broken multiple conditions of pre-trial release.

And in a head-snapping turn of events Thursday, the appellate court agreed to stay the order (or mandate, in legal parlance) while appellate prosecutors seek a rehearing or ticket the issue for the Supreme Court.

La Salle County State’s Attorney Joe Navarro said he disagrees with Wednesday’s ruling and thinks Matthews didn’t deserve any relief.

“This particular individual had 290 violations,” Navarro said. “That is a classic example of the SAFE-T Act and its stupidity: that he can only serve 30 days for 290 violations.

“In the past, he’d have been held in contempt, held in jail, or had his bond revoked.”

The case might not be finished, but round 1 went in favor of Robert Matthews of Streator, who has a pending meth case. Matthews racked up 290 pre-trial violations, according to court records, and was punished with a trio of 30-day sanctions.

On appeal, Matthews argued the SAFE-T Act didn’t give judges authority to impose multiple 30-day sanctions. Three appellate justices agreed with him.

“The statute states that sanctions for violations may include imprisonment in the county jail for a period not exceeding 30 days,” Justice Linda Davenport wrote in a unanimous opinion. “Thus, it plainly authorizes one 30-day period, even when the state has proved multiple violations.”

Matthews’ lawyer, La Salle County Public Defender Ryan Hamer, said Thursday he is “very pleased” with the ruling. Hamer said there are aspects of the SAFE-T Act “that may not be very popular, but we have to ensure the law is applied as the Legislature intended.”