the time” he was arrested. See Kisker, 147 S.W.3d at 877. A driver successfully rebuts the presumption of intoxication by showing a malfunction in the breathalyzer machine because it questions the accuracy of the test result. See Vernon v. Dir. of Revenue, 142 S.W.3d 905, 911 (Mo.App. S.D.2004) (a variance from a reading of .000 in a blank test evidenced a malfunction); Kennedy v. Dir. of Revenue, 73 S.W.3d 85 (Mo.App. S.D. 2002) (a reading that the “system won’t zero” evidenced a malfunction). A driver may also successfully rebut a Director’s prima facie case by adducing scientific evidence that his or her BAC “was in fact below the legal limit.” Kaufman v. Dir. of Revenue, 193 S.W.3d 300, 302-03 (Mo.App. W.D.2006); see also Booth v. Dir. of Revenue, 34 S.W.3d 221 (Mo.App. E.D.2000) (<HOLDING>), overruled on other grounds by Verdoorn, 119
holding that   1252d1 bars the consideration of bases for relief that were not raised below and of general issues that were not raised below but not of specific subsidiary legal arguments or arguments by extension that were not made below holding driver successfully rebutted presumption by adducing scientific evidence that her bac was below the legal limit holding that this court lacks jurisdiction to review a legal claim not presented in administrative proceedings below holding that argument offered in defense of decision below had been waived when not raised below holding that the sentence was reasonable in part because it was well below the statutory maximum