Defendant appealed the decision of the trial judge sustaining the violations of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 (refusal to submit to a chemical test) and R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-15-11 (laned roadway). Defendant claimed that her refusal to submit was not made knowingly, intelligently, or voluntarily because she was not fluent in the English language. The Court held that the defendant knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily refused because before she made the decision to refuse to submit she was read the Rights for Use at the Station form several times, she asked the officer questions pertaining to the Rights for Use form, and she had the opportunity to speak with counsel. Further, the Court noted that the defendant’s bare assertion that she did not understand should not result in the dismissal of the violation. Accordingly, the Court sustained the violation of § 31-27-2.1.