test result either from a different type of test (blood or saliva) or perhaps from a different breathalyzer. Without scientific proof that the second test result is more accurate than the first test result, the trial court erred in finding the Director carried his burden. Our decision does not cause a hardship to the Director because if an officer is dissatisfied with the results of the breath test, under section 577.020 the driver must submit to a second type of chemical test: either a blood, urine, or a saliva test. See Smith v. Dir. of Revenue, 260 S.W.3d 896, 902-03 (Mo.App. S.D.2008) (finding the officer was authorized under section 577.020.2 to ask a driver to submit to blood test despite the result of the breath test); State v. Simmons, 186 S.W.3d 418 (Mo.App. S.D.2006) (<HOLDING>). Therefore, the judgment is reversed, and Mr.
holding that there is no constitutional right to refuse chemical testing under the implied consent law holding insufficient officers advisement that defendants license may be suspended if he refused to submit to breath test when statute mandates that license will be suspended for refusal of chemical test holding that suppression of stateadministered breath test is necessary where the accused is denied access to a telephone despite his requests to arrange an independent chemical test holding the limit of two tests in section 5770202 applies to the types of chemical test performed and not the number of times the same chemical test is performed holding that denial of an independent chemical test after defendant refused to submit to a policeadministered test did not violate due process