Defendant appealed the decision of the trial judge sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-22-22 (safety belt use). Defendant argued that his due process rights were violated because he was not afforded the opportunity to a speedy trial. The Appeals Panel held that the right to a speedy trial only applies to criminal prosecutions and, because the charge of violating § 31-22-22 is civil in nature, the constitutional right to a speedy trial had no application. “Due Process” at the Traffic Tribunal means “an opportunity to be heard within a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.” Here, the defendant’s rights were not violated because he had been fully heard on the merits of the case and had cross-examined the officer. Accordingly, the Court sustained the violation against the defendant.