Defendant appealed the decision of the Appeals Panel sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to a chemical test).  Defendant argued that she had fulfilled her obligation under the implied consent law to submit to chemical test because she consented to a PBT after she had been arrested for suspicion of DUI.  Section 31-27-2.1 defines a “chemical” test as a test that operates on the principle of infrared light absorption.  The District Court held that the record was devoid of whether the PBT used to test the defendant operated on the principle of infrared light absorption.  Consequently, the Court could not determine whether the defendant had complied with the requirements of § 31-27-2.1 by submitting to a “chemical” test.  Accordingly, the Court remanded the case to the Traffic Tribunal for further factual findings regarding the technology that the PBT utilized.