In Southern California, it’s pretty much understood that you can drive to a well-lit area. This, unfortunately, stems from the Craig Peyer case.
In reality, if you are not yielding to a police officer, you need to understand that they are going to call for backup. And if you (a) fail to dim your lights, and (b) fail to yield, they are going to think that you are drunk, high, or criminally stupid. In either case, they are going to want to have more units there when they actually stop you. And they are going to get on their radios and have everyone listening to a play-by-play of your direction/speed/vehicle code violations etc. Because they don’t know who you are or what you are doing. All they know is that you are not yielding as required - whether because you are drunk, in possession of something illegal, scared, high, have a cut brake line, etc. They simply do not know and have to prepare for the worst.
IMHO, the fact that the DA/City’s Attorney/whoever actually charged her indicates that there was probably plenty of indication that she was not quite the misguided “drive to a safe area like my children told me too” angel she argues that she is. That’s just IMHO by the way and definitely not fact.
ETA: I would definitely want more access to the facts/record (not that your publication is not presenting everything quite well) - it’s just that you really need to hear everything to figure out what was going on/whether the charge was justified/whether the crime was actually committed.