Defendant appealed the decision of the Appeals Panel sustaining the violations of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-15-8 (no passing zones) and R.I.G.L 1956 § 31-15-12 (interval between vehicle). Defendant claimed that the evidence on record was insufficient to support the interval between vehicles charge because the officer failed to specifically testify that his driving was “unreasonable.” The District Court held that there was sufficient evidence on record to support both convictions because the officer testified that he observed the defendant “attempting to pass . . . another vehicle in a no passing zone double yellow by the truck stop [then] swerved back in and was riding the vehicle in front of him too closely.” The Court held that it was not necessary for the officer to state specifically that the defendant’s driving was unreasonable because the trial judge was able to conclude based on the testimony that the defendant had driven unreasonably. Accordingly, the Court sustained the violation against the defendant.