Defendant appealed the decision of the trial judge sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to a chemical test). The Court held that the state was required to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the arresting officer had reasonable grounds to believe that the defendant was under the influence, and was not required to prove that defendant was actually under the influence. The requisite reasonable grounds existed here because the defendant went through a red light, narrowly avoided a collision with another vehicle, struck a curb, fumbled with his license, had slurred speech, had bloodshot and watery eyes, emitted a strong odor of alcohol from his breath, and failed two of three field sobriety tests. Therefore, the Court affirmed the decision of the trial court sustaining the charge against the defendant.