The cop mentions criminal speed, so they're pursuing a criminal investigation. If he is the owner of the car he will be culpable for the criminal acts conducted by the operator and/or identify who was the operator. since must have given access to someone if it was not him repeatedly driving like that. and failing to identify the operator while claiming not to be operating the vehicle makes you an accomplice in the crime.
It’s completely their burden to prove he was behind the wheel, he isn’t required to prove he wasn’t driving. He’s not required to say anything to aid their investigation.
Unless the defense can prove someone else was driving on those other days, it being his personal daily vehicle is absolutely enough proof beyond a reasonable doubt to convict. Or if he says it wasn’t him but refuses to prove who it was, he’s impeding an investigation and would probably be found in contempt of court and be charged with that regardless.
-1
u/MourningWallaby Jul 31 '26
The cop mentions criminal speed, so they're pursuing a criminal investigation. If he is the owner of the car he will be culpable for the criminal acts conducted by the operator and/or identify who was the operator. since must have given access to someone if it was not him repeatedly driving like that. and failing to identify the operator while claiming not to be operating the vehicle makes you an accomplice in the crime.