to take the requested chemical breath test. The record indicates that Allison never answered Trooper Brazas’s question, and instead either remained silent, asked for a moment, exclaimed-that she could not believe the Trooper was doing this to her, complained that her face was itching, or asked for clarification that her license would be revoked if she refused. Approximately four minutes elapsed between Trooper Brazas’s first request that Allison submit to the chemical breath test and when he indicated his intent to deem her refusal to respond a refusal to submit. This evidence, which the trial court was free to believe, constitutes substantial evidénce that Allison refused to submit to the requested chemical breath test. See State v. Caines, 427 S.W.3d 305, 308 (Mo. App. E.D. 2014) (<HOLDING>); State v. Foster, 959 S.W.2d 143, 147 (Mo.
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 a person arrested for dui has the right to consult an attorney before taking a breath test when such consultation would not delay or interfere with the investigation or test taking holding that a driver demonstrated his refusal by giving nonresponsive answers to a request for a breath test ignoring a request for a yesorno answer and never taking the 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 1 that administering a breath test is not a critical stage of the proceedings to which a sixth amendment right to counsel attaches and 2 that the results of a breath test are physical evidence  not testimonial  and thus no fifth amendment right to counsel attaches