302.505.1 is hereby set aside. The judgment will be affirmed unless there is no substantial evidence to support it, unless it is against the weight of the evidence, unless it erroneously declares the law, or unless it erroneously applies the law. This court has construed section 302.505.1 to require Director to prove two elements in order to prevail at a trial de novo. Cases from the Eastern and Western Districts are in accord. To hold otherwise would mean an individual who was not in fact driving a motor vehicle could have his or her driver's license suspended or revoked if arrested on probable cause to believe he or she was driving while his or her blood alcohol concentration was .10 percent or more by weight.
Director cites no authority for that proposition.
The trial court was entitled to believe House's testimony that Williams drove the pickup to the arrest site, as credibility of witnesses and the weight to be given their testimony was a matter for the trial court, which was free to believe none, part, or all of any witness's testimony. It is difficult for this court to comprehend how a fact-finder could reach either conclusion on the evidence here. However, this court need not speculate about the logic that guided the trial court to its judgment. As explained earlier, Director was required to prove, inter alia, that House was driving the pickup when it arrived at the site where Ward ultimately arrested House. House's testimony that Williams was driving was sufficient to support a finding against Director on that issue.