Justin Kendall reports Lokeman appeared in court April 3, and the judge ordered the DMV to reinstate Lokeman's driving privileges.
Let's look at the law. The penalty in Missouri for refusing a breath test is a one year suspension of driving privileges. The statute on refusing a breath test is here. The April 3 hearing was about the refusal, not the DUI charge.
Did the judge follow the law in this case? Here is the relevant part of Missouri's law:
At the hearing the court shall determine only:
(1) Whether or not the person was arrested or stopped;
(2) Whether or not the officer had:
(a) Reasonable grounds to believe that the person was driving a motor vehicle while in an intoxicated or drugged condition; or
(b) Reasonable grounds to believe that the person stopped, being under the age of twenty-one years, was driving a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol content of two-hundredths of one percent or more by weight; or
(c) Reasonable grounds to believe that the person stopped, being under the age of twenty-one years, was committing a violation of the traffic laws of the state, or political subdivision of the state, and such officer had reasonable grounds to believe, after making such stop, that the person had a blood alcohol content of two-hundredths of one percent or greater; and
(3) Whether or not the person refused to submit to the test.
5. If the court determines any issue not to be in the affirmative, the court shall order the director to reinstate the license or permit to drive.
So the court had to have found that at least one of the above issues was not affirmative.
Jeez. Lets take the issues one by one.
(1) Yes: officer tells Lokeman she is under arrest here.
(2) (a) Yes: she was driving on 3 tires, had no idea she was missing a tire, and had no idea there was significant damage under the carriage. Video here. Officers say they smelled alcohol on her breath after she started yelling at them. Video here. Plenty of reasonable evidence Lokeman was driving impaired.
(2) (b) not applicable since Lokeman is over 21
(2) (c) not applicable since Lokeman is over 21
(3) Yes, Lokeman refused: video here.
The video evidence is there. Looks to me like the judge followed a creative interpretation of the law instead of the plain meaning. If there is more to this, leave info in comments or email me.