Defendant appealed the decision of the trial judge sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-15-2 (slow traffic to right). At trial, the citing officer testified that he followed the defendant for three and one-half miles on Route 95 southbound during which the defendant was traveling between 60 and 65 mph in the left lane, he never passed a vehicle, the normal speed of traffic was between 70 and 75 mph, and the defendant created a “tremendous disruption” by blocking cars, which caused them to drive aggressively and pass in the right lane. However, the Appeals Panel held that the record was devoid of how the officer ascertained the speed of the defendant’s vehicle. In order for speedometer or radar evidence to be admissible, the operational efficiency of the device must be tested within a reasonable time and the record must contain the officer’s testimony setting forth his training and experience. See State v. Mancino, 340 A.2d 128 (R.I. 1975); State v. Sprague, 322 A.2d 36, 39-40 (R.I. 1974). Consequently, the Court held that the decision of the trial judge was affected by error of law as it was not supported by evidence on record and dismissed the violation against the defendant.