Skip to main content

Connor Cato was stunned when he received a speeding ticket in Savannah, Georgia, in September 2023. Indeed, he was “greatly” exceeding the speed limit: the violation stated Georgia State Patrol clocked him moving 90 mph in a 55 mph zone, categorizing him as a “super speeder.” Cato didn’t dispute the speed. Rather, it was the fine itself: $1.4 million.

“I knew I was going to be fined for speeding, but $1.4 million was beyond comprehension,” he told local news outlet WSAV.

When he saw the breathtaking dollar figure, he phoned the local court.

“‘$1.4 million,’ the lady told me on the phone. I said, ‘This might be a typo,’” he recalled. “She said, ‘No sir, you either pay the amount on the ticket or you come to court on Dec. 21 at 1:30 p.m.’”

Despite the rep’s harsh answer, the court’s official response corrected the speeding ticket messaging. The court installed a new e-ticketing system in 2017. As it turns out, the system “automatically” puts $999,999 plus costs in each e-citation.

According to the court’s statements, the figure is a “placeholder” a judge modifies after a mandatory court appearance. In the state of Georgia, motorists cited for driving 35-plus mph over the posted limit  – called “super speeders” – must appear in court.

During super speeder court appearances, a judge determines an “appropriate” fine for the matter, not to exceed $1,000 plus state-mandated costs.

Since super speeder tickets don’t have a set fine attached when police officers issue them, the new system’s programmers used the highest dollar figure possible as a placeholder.

Despite state laws limiting traffic fines, the e-citation language on Cato’s speeding ticket confused even a criminal defense attorney. “At first when I was asked about this, I thought it was a clerical error…I have never seen something like this, ever,” said Sneh Patel, an attorney based in Savannah who focuses on DUIs, drug-related arrests, and traffic violations.

People were interested in these podcasts

In October 2023, the Savannah Recorder’s Court committed to adjusting e-citation language to avoid confusion.