Defendant appealed the decision of the trial judge sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-14-2 (prima facie limits). Defendant argued that the state failed to prove the violation by clear and convincing evidence because the officer failed to enter into evidence the certificate of calibration. However, the Court held that the requirements necessary for radar evidence to support the charge of speeding were satisfied because the officer testified to his training and experience in the use of the radar device and that the device had been calibrated within a reasonable time. Accordingly, the Court sustained the violation against the defendant.